[editor’s note: Troy Wynn is a doctoral student studying physics. He runs Some Mormon Stuff which is a “blog about Mormon history, its people and beliefs.” He has done several well-researched articles dealing with racial issues in the LDS church, including one that addressed Lawrence O’Donnell’s charge made the height of the Romney campaign that Mormonism was pro-slavery. Troy has been invited as a guest blogger to do a series on interracial marriage and to provide a critique of Connell O’Donovan’s seminal work on the topic. Previous discussion can be found here at FAIR and at the Juvenile Instructor blog.]
In his paper titled “LDS Historical Rhetoric & Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks,” Connell O’Donovan asserts that Brigham Young’s fear of black sexuality was the reason he prohibited black-white marriage and instigated the priesthood-temple ban, and that Young’s resistance to black-white marriage must be seen within the context of his own marital experimentation which at that time was receiving scrutiny via the press and the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. He then lists several topics of discussion, such as, examples of inter-racial marriages in LDS history, the fruition of anti-miscegenation laws under BY, statements about black-white marriage from the Deseret News, and eventually how LDS leaders abandoned their restrictions against black-white marriage. Or, as O’Donovan puts it, “unnecessary restrictions on the boundaries of love and marriage.”
His paper also demonstrates that LDS feelings at one time were deeply hostile to black-white marriage and that many Latter-day Saints believed black-white marriages would never be permitted, etc.
With that in mind, he doesn’t explicitly state the purpose of his paper. If it is to parade prejudicial attitudes once held by many Mormons, and Mormon leaders, then why talk about gay marriage? Though he doesn’t come out and say it explicitly, his paper is principally, though indirectly, about gay marriage.
His declamations about LDS attitudes toward black-white marriage ultimately serve his beliefs about Mormonism and gay marriage. In the past (and not-so-distant past) many Mormons believed black-white marriages were really bad and held rather racist attitudes towards blacks. But eventually the LDS Church abandoned their antiquated beliefs. He then draws on those former attitudes to create parallels with current attitudes about homosexuals and homosexual marriage. By building on those parallels O’Donovan takes those feelings of shame and embarrassment about the past and attaches them to present-day negative attitudes about homosexuality, gays, and gay marriage. From there he creates a sense that the past changed for the better and hopefully the present situation will too.
As far as BY’s involvement in a rather embarrassing divorce—BY had married a plural wife, Augusta Cobb, who had not yet divorced her first husband—I don’t see the relevance. Why must BY’s resistance to black-white marriage be “seen within the context of his own marital experimentation”? One would think O’Donovan would build a solid case that very strong assertion. But instead, he chickens out by posing and then answering the question, “Did Young then turn and take out his frustrations on a group of ‘inferiors’?…it would certainly seem so.” Though he doesn’t build a much of case for his assertion as to why BY’s opposition to black-white marriage “must also be seen within the context of his own marital experimentation” (italics mine), as a parallel device it works. BY took out his fear on those who were an easy target and today the LDS Church takes out its fear on homosexuals who are also an easy target.
O’Donovan’s paper fails as serious historical inquiry. As an exhibition of dirty laundry he succeeds, but ends up with a rather confused paper. As polemics creating a connection between abandoned, embarrassing attitudes about race and soon to be abandoned (he hopes) attitudes about homosexuals and gay marriage, he succeeds.
In other words, his paper is a nice piece of propaganda.
Drawing on the past
O’Donovan’s paper is a variation on the theme, “The patterns of the past are the patterns of the future.”
BY’s fear about black male sexuality prompted a ban on black-white marriage (an attitude the church eventually abandoned); the Church’s ban on homosexual marriage comes from its attitudes about homosexual sex (an perhaps that too will be abandoned). The church abandoned plural marriage and will eventually abandon opposition to gay marriage. The church dropped its priesthood ban and eventually will drop its own ban on gay marriage. In the past Mormons had racist attitudes against blacks, but that changed; Mormons will eventually abandon their attitudes against homosexuality. At one time laws prohibited black-white marriage; and one day laws prohibiting gay-marriage will also be history. The push for gay marriage is a continuation of the civil rights movement which overturned many discriminatory laws and attitudes. It will continue and eventually overturn laws and attitudes against gay marriage. Since Mormons find some aspects of their past embarrassing; one day they will feel embarrassment about present-day opposition to gay marriage…But why wait. Start change now!
That is how the usual polemic goes. I’ll write more in another post, but this will do for now.
Thanks, Troy for your insights. I have been swamped lately and haven’t had time to do any follow ups to my first installment on interracial marriage where I agree with you that Young’s plural marriage with Cobb isn’t all that relevant to his views on interracial marriage.
I think there is a time and place for social activists to draw upon lessons of history to make a point. Seems appropriate for Sunstone. I would rather see a treatment that just attempts to reconstruct the past without the distractions, though.
The church doesn’t hate black people and it doesn’t hate gay people. There are a lot of reasons proposed as to why black people were banned from the priesthood, but we really can’t tell the actual reason.
There are several problems with connecting interracial marriages with same-sex marriages.
One problem was that although interracial marriages were discouraged, it wasn’t prohibited. Interracial couples did not have to get a divorce before they could get baptized in the church. Same-sex couples cannot be baptized until they break off all same-sex relationships.
I also don’t like comparing black people, who do not chose to be black, with people who chose to pursue same-sex relationships. One is a choice, while the other is not. You might as well say the church once didn’t allow black people to hold the priesthood, so maybe one day they will allow rapists to hold the priesthood. Behavior and race are two different things. There are many prophecies that blacks would be able to receive all of the blessings of God, while people who disobey the commandments of God have never been made that promise.
The problem is that too often people confuse sexual orientation with sexual behavior. The church loves and supports homosexual people. It does not support same-sex relationships. They are two different things.
Troy, it is true that Connell has an underlying agenda that colors his interpretation. But, you’d be hard pressed to find any academically-trained historian these days who will argue that complete objectivity is possible (do they still think that in the hard sciences?) Every act of historical writing involves interpretation and framing. Connell’s is fairly obvious in his paper, as is yours in this post.
His argument about BY’s involvement in the Massachusetts State SC being directly relevant is something that needs to be fleshed out more. Nice correlation, perhaps, but direct causation is, as you point out, not addressed in this paper. You do have to remember that you’re critiquing a working draft of a conference paper. Connell hasn’t published this yet and I hope that before he does he either strengthens his case there or takes it out.
But aside from these two points, I don’t see how you honestly come to the conclusion that “O’Donovan’s paper fails as serious historical inquiry.” Again, this is a working draft, but as it is, it is the first sustained investigation of the role of antimiscegenation in the lead-up to the institution of the ban. Connell’s mentions in his paper that his mentor at the University of Utah was Peggy Pascoe, who has written the definitive work on antimiscegenation in US history, so Connell has had some exposure to some of the best thinking on the subject. More work needs to be done to fully contextualize LDS-antimiscegenation views within broader US history, but I’m not convinced by your facile suggestion that Connell’s work should be dismissed as mere propaganda.
It seems that FAIR would be better served if it worked to help members understand difficult issues, which O’Donovan’s paper does better than does this response.
I have to ask, what is the value of attempting to identify something as polemical (and implying that’s bad) and then answering in a polemical fashion?
How does he explain what was going on with the rest of society? Does he give any historical or cultural context or does he need to put Mormonism in a vacuum to buttress his conclusions?
The Church better not change its stance about same sex marriage, or that will be proof it has gone into apostasy.
What onika said. Totally.
The main thrust of my response to O’Donovan’s paper is that its purpose is principally polemical. The history that he mentions serves that purpose, which is to create parallels between the past and what he hopes will be a more liberal future regarding homosexuals and gay marriage. If that point is omitted then one is left with a mishmash of dirty laundry about former LDS attitudes about race and black-white marriage with some polygamy thrown in. The items he mentions don’t have a coherent purpose without the gay marriage issue. That is why, to me, it does not constitute serious historical inquiry.
His paper is an opinion piece (and that’s OK) and serves an agenda he believes in. My response is very opinionated too, and it serves something I believe in, opposing gay marriage. The politics is really what this is about. Not history.
What I wrote was an entry post into what will become a larger debate. True, I did not make my purpose clear. But that was my first post and serves as a starting point for future posts.
As has already been pointed out, you seem to have this notion that historical inquiry is objective. David put it best. Your continued effort to try and dismiss the paper in toto is further proof that you are in no position to judge what is serious historical inquiry. Take away the agenda and O’D’s paper still gives us plenty and a starting place for a lot more. If, however, we take you’re own polemical agenda away, what you’re left with is a mishmash of much much less than what O’D gives us.
It’s just this kind of troubling work that shows to me time and time again that what goes on in this neck of the woods is not something I’d be proud to own either as a scholar or as a Latter-day Saint.
That having been said, from the start you’ve made, I’d say you have a bright future in apologetics.
I don’t have a lot of hope that anything further from you will be any better, but let me give you some advice about how to avoid being the typical fare around here. If you can find the scholarly character to offer a balanced critique while repudiating the over-the-top polemical tone based in ad hominem, you just may be able to churn out something respectable.
Good luck with all that.
I know Blair, Clark, and others have tried to convince us at the JI and elsewhere that FAIR is not a monolith and that various authors bring different approaches to the table. I think Kevin Barney illustrates that not all FAIR apologists have their head in the sand, preferring to flail their arms and make mountains out of molehills. But Troy’s post is exhibit A for exactly the type of approach that rubs LDS academics wrong. As Troy admits, he’s not interested in scholarship, he’s interested in scoring political points. The fact is that in spite of Connell’s pro-gay subtexts, and at times questionable allusions, he is making serious contributions to our understanding of race relations in Mormon history.
If that point is omitted then one is left with a mishmash of dirty laundry about former LDS attitudes about race and black-white marriage with some polygamy thrown in.
If that is what you think of Connell’s scholarship, then I invite you to go back and read it more closely. Rather than simply digging up “dirty laundry,” Connell has done painstaking research recovering the lives of early black members such as Walker Lewis and Joseph T. Ball who received the priesthood during JS’s lifetime. He’s also uncovered evidence that, in spite of official proclamations to the contrary, several members of African descent in 19th century Utah were allowed to enter the temple and get their endowments and be sealed to loved ones. Aside from documenting the much needed social history of these Latter-day Saints, Connell has also picked up where Lester Bush, Newell Bringhurst, and others left off in examining the discourses used by LDS leaders to construct African Americans as descendants of Cain, Ham, and Canaan, less valiant in the preexistance and therefore only good for servitude in this life. Part of this inquiry necessarily includes interracial marriage, which, contrary to some comments above, was condemned by BY and other early church leaders and even proclaimed to be punishable by death.
To dismiss all of this as simply “dirty laundry” is to fundamentally misunderstand not only Connell’s work but also the importance of facing the problems in our past rather than burying them.
When the “I’m a scholar but you’re an apologist” chest thumping overtakes a discussion one can be sure there is discomfort with the topic. That might be because of statements like this ” “unnecessary restrictions on the boundaries of love and marriage.”” or “With this clear and near-perfect precedent set, I can only demand to know how soon before LDS leaders will allow same-sex couples the free agency to marry, even civilly, those whom we love?” masquerading as a scholarly presentation. This treatment of race is so facile and spotty that it should be an embarrassment to all the LDS academics David G. thinks he represents.
“By the nineteenth century, the same intellectual and social forces that contributed to the racialization of Noah’s prophecy came to bear on Genesis 10, which was consistently read as an account of humanity’s racial origins and as proof that “racial distinctions and national barriers proceed from God.”
Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: the Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York, Oxford Press, 2002), 6.
This was THE belief not just BY’s belief. That anyone would ignore this when presenting a paper on the topic is incomprehensible.
One clear problem in all viewpoints is our bias to one side. Some Mormons don’t want to know anything negative about church history, while others only want to study the negative side. There is no question that the early Mormon leaders had an ignorant view towaards the black race. The question we must face today is how does that relate to our relationship with Christ.
I am humbled by the fact that most members will stand when the current prophet enters the room, but the same members will bow their knee when Christ enters. That is how I look at church history.
Troy, I’ve read over some of your other posts on your blog dealing with race, and over there you seem thoughtful, sincere, and informed. I wish you had approached this post in the same manner; I wouldn’t have jumped all over you like I did. This is a difficult issue, I think we can agree on that. Where we disagree is on the significance of Connell’s work in the historiography.
Juliann,
To be honest, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but you’re using the same exaggerated rhetoric that you seem to be condemning and, I can only presume, deliberately refusing to take into account the context of O’D’s paper and the points that David and I have been trying to get across.
I don’t think anyone here disagrees that Brigham Young was not unique in his views about Blacks being cursed. I know David’s aware of that and so am I, and further, I’d be willing to bet O’D is also aware of that. But to say, “that anyone would ignore this when presenting a paper on the topic is incomprehensible” is just silly. First, you’re ignoring again the work-in-progress nature of the paper, which was given at Sunstone to what was probably a friendly audience. You ought to know that speakers tailor their presentations to their audiences and that you can only put so much into a 20 minute presentation. It’s clear that O’D’s paper is taking a very LDS-centric look at misegination. That’s allowable given the context (which even Keller in comment 1 concedes–if I’m reading him correctly), and there are some important things to learn from it. As has already been mentioned, if this were to be published, a lot of this would need to be fleshed out more and larger themes better engaged (but this is nothing new, did you even read David’s first comment, last paragraph?)
“This treatment of race is so facile and spotty that it should be an embarrassment to all the LDS academics David G. thinks he represents.”
This statement is quite short sighted. No one here, not David (if I may presume to speak for him) or myself are defending O’D’s paper tooth and nail as the epitome of racial scholarship. We’re (or I’m) just saying that the kind of over-the-top blanket dismissal that both Wynn and yourself have expressed misses the mark and is not fairly evaluating the important contributions he has made to all the things David mentioned in his last comment. It is true, the paper in question does not well engage larger racial themes (again, see David’s first comment, last paragraph), but those larger themes are only part of a good racial study. The other part, which O’D does indeed contribute important insights to is how those larger themes played out on the ground. Taking for granted that Mormons were products of their environment, how did those larger racial views get negotiated not just in theory but in very practice? Again, O’D’s paper is the first sustained study of this aspect of Mormon Racial history. He has done some incredible work recovering the stories of early Black LDS. He is giving us glimpses of how Mormons negotiated these larger views with the realities of their every day experience. How that is not significant and how you can still so easily brush that all aside is…how did you put it? Incomprehensible.
So, I don’t know what your comment contributes to this conversation except to show a continued misunderstanding of the fundamental issues involved here. Forgive me if I don’t have much faith in either your or Wynn’s concepts of what constitutes “scholarly” or “serious” historical inquiry. But again, bright future in apologetics [generally speaking].
David G. pointed out that O’Donovan “is making serious contributions to our understanding of race relations in Mormon history.” I see no reason to dispute that. Nothing I wrote in my response hinges on that point anyway.
I did not say O’Donovan was a bad scholar. But I did hammer his paper very hard. And I don’t apologize for that.
Some of the information in his paper is new. He presents some hitherto unknown statements about race relations from the Deseret News. Great. I’m all for that.
But this is the question. Is his paper a serious contribution to understanding race relations in Mormon history, or is it an attempt to persuade those who are opposed to gay marriage to change their view?
He is using race relations as platform. In his paper the history is a device. And that is THE reason I reacted so strongly to his paper.
A significant portion of the information in his paper is historical. And I’m sure he is a capable scholar. But he is a scholar who wrote a paper that uses race relations to further a personal agenda. (One that I’m opposed to.) And he did so in a very overt way.
My next post will further clarify why I believe it is important to vigorously oppose using race relations and polygamy to further the gay agenda. Which is exactly what O’Donovan did with his “LDS Historical Rhetoric & Praxis” piece.
David G. pointed out that O’Donovan “is making serious contributions to our understanding of race relations in Mormon history.” I see no reason to dispute that. Nothing I wrote in my response hinges on that point anyway.
Except that that’s THE question, right?
But this is the question. Is his paper a serious contribution to understanding race relations in Mormon history, or is it an attempt to persuade those who are opposed to gay marriage to change their view?
Whatever, man.
As I said before,
“…let me give you some advice about how to avoid being the typical fare around here. If you can find the scholarly character to offer a balanced critique while repudiating the over-the-top polemical tone based in ad hominem, you just may be able to churn out something respectable. Good luck with all that.”
It is reasonable to use past polygamy and race views by Mormon leaders to the current gay marriage issue. It would be ignorant to assume there is no connection. It does not matter if the O’Donovan writing is biased or not because we must all be objective in our approach. That means looking at all facts instead of emotions.
Chino, onika,
Wouldn’t an LDS policy change on this front be rather proof that the LDS Church has repented in your eyes?
I am just catching up on this discussion. Looks like I missed the fireworks. I appreciate you guys from Juvenile Instructor from chiming in. As an amateur historian I absorb a lot from the constructive critiques from those of you who have academic training. I wish more interaction could occur.
If Sunstone is an appropriate forum to occasionally mix solid historical research with a social agenda that runs counter to the Church’s, than I hope FAIR can be considered an appropriate forum to mix historical research with a social agenda that supports the Church.
Jared T: So, I don’t know what your comment contributes to this conversation except to show a continued misunderstanding of the fundamental issues involved here. Forgive me if I don’t have much faith in either your or Wynn’s concepts of what constitutes “scholarly” or “serious” historical inquiry. But again, bright future in apologetics [generally speaking].
Juliann: Your surly tone aside, this is an apologetic response to top all apologetic responses. I see nothing more than bad temper and an insistence that race and SSM are somehow equivalent. You have presented nothing to show that they are. The burden is yours if you want to support that connection. Meanwhile, if you want to discuss race by all means let’s do it.
Thanks, Keller, and of course it’s appropriate for FAIR (that’s kind of also been part of my point), and I hope that it will be recognized that the JI voices (or, my voice, I’ll speak for myself) have been talking about how both sides need be a bit more tidy.
Juliann, what the heck are you talking about? I never even mentioned SSM in my comment much less an “insistence that race and SSM are somehow equivalent.” What planet are you on? Never once in any comment I’ve made have I shown any indication of supporting the SSM-race connection. And I can see it will do no good to try for the third time to get my point across. Thanks for proving my statement in the portion you quoted to the letter.
You can have the last word, cuz this is like trying to talk to a wall.
I’m talking about the paper, Jared. What are you talking about when “Though he doesn’t come out and say it explicitly, his paper is principally, though indirectly, about gay marriage.” You and others are labeling, sterotyping and then lecturing “apologists” rather than discussing the content of the paper and getting angry when your targets don’t say thank you. The nannying is old, it’s lame, it’s tired and most of all…it’s diversionary. The lectures begin to blend and it is becomes too burdensome to get the right name on the same finger wagging so if I have mistakenly responded to you rather than another lecturer…my apologies. But as you said above “whatever, man”. When I first got involved in the study of race and religion it was immediately apparent that the topic was so far-reaching that it couldn’t be contained as a “Mormon” problem. American problem, yes, and Mormons are a part of that. What becomes interesting to me is not only how differing religious traditions created the problem but how they have tackled the problem. The value of this paper is in the quotes he has dug up. I haven’t seen them. But to use something as deeply important as race for little more than a box in which to package something else is a little offensive.
Dear Troy, et al.
Connell here! And please, HAMMER AWAY at my essay! I welcome it, and I’m just happy to be included in the debate, perhaps opening new vistas or uncovering new data, and maybe making mistakes here and there. (If so, please point them out! I’m always extremely willing to apologize when I have erred.) I really think it’s not such a bad paper, for someone who was unable to finish a bachelor’s degree due to being asked to leave my program at the University of Utah over a radical, post-modern Queer essay that I published in a campus journal. (The freedoms of speech, the press, and religion sometimes do not apply to LGBT tax-payers in this country.)
As a deeply radical Queer Christian activist, I joyfully inhabit and revel in a messy world of culture, politics, ethics, history, polemics, heritage, sexuality, ethnicity, spirituality, genealogy, morality, economics, ritual, etc.; Troy, maybe you don’t. However, I cannot and will not compartmentalize “history” from that elegant, swirling mess; instead, like the Good Grey Poet, Whitman, I “embrace multitudes”. Objective? Hardly. Of course I have a soapbox. I’ve led a deeply painful life. So yes, I’m a preacher. And a historian. And politician. And genealogist. And poet. And child of God.
As a survivor of TEN YEARS in the LDS church’s horrific programs of aversion therapy, anti-Gay hypnotherapy, weekly humiliating interviews, weekly fasting, daily prayer, exorcisms, priesthood blessings, all intended to “cure” my homosexuality and destroy an elemental aspect of my soul, how could I be anything else but a passionate spokesperson for myself and my LGBT brothers and sisters everywhere? I know our pain like no one else. And I’ve been blessed with intelligence, spirit, and an ability to write well. What was done to me, my soul, and my body by well-meaning LDS leaders is nothing less than an abomination. These horrors all continue in your church and elsewhere. I watch in agony as the Ugandan parliament, backed by evangelical Christians here in the U.S., seriously considers a bill that would bring the death penalty for some homosexual acts, life sentences for others, and even three-year prison terms for family members, neighbors, and friends who do not turn known LGBT Ugandans in to the government.
That’s one extreme end of homophobia. Denying civil homogamy to tax-paying citizens may be at the “gentler” end of the spectrum, but it is still right in there, arising out of fear, tradition, and lack of education around the issue. I pray daily that the LDS church will learn to keep its doctrine out of our covenants (sacred or secular, as they may be).
As I researched black-white intermarriage in Mormonism, it became extremely clear to me that the parallels to anti-homogamy are startlingly similar. (I was delightfully unprepared for this thesis to arise from the research.) Over some twelve decades, LDS General Authorities testified in God’s name that black-white intermarriage was an abominable sin contrary to the divine order of nature and vowed the LDS church would never allow it. What was once a profound sin is no longer. I believe I provided ample, well-documented evidence of this. And yes, I was very overt in my homosexual agenda in this paper (that’s how I live my life – I’m tired of dark closets). How could I not point out the similarities between those statements and what the LDS Church has said and continues to say about homosexuality and homogamy? I could have hidden my agenda, but what’s the point? You’d find it anyway and make a parade of that. I might as well be honest and show my integrity (“embracing multitudes”). I happen to believe strongly that the historical is political; the personal is political; the spiritual is political. For the record, I tried to restrain my politics in this paper as much as possible, because I do want you at least to hear me, rather than simply dismiss me out of hand. I deeply thank both Sunstone and the John Whitmer Historical Association for the wonderful opportunity to give versions of this paper at their conferences.
Anyway, I really love and welcome all this discussion and the wonderful, thoughtful comments on both sides. As brothers and sisters in our shared humanity, this is healthy, and in the largest view, goes a long way toward us all growing together in compassion and understanding – loving our neighbors (even those nasty Samaritans…and Queers!) as we love ourselves. I thank you, Troy, for re-airing the “dirty laundry” I found. Dirty it was and continues to be. But please don’t blame me for pointing it out – I am merely a witness, here to testify (and as a “historian” to allow those in the past to testify as well). I pray for the time when Mormonism does all its laundry, and finally decides to stand on the side of love, rather than fear. After all is said and done, I know deep in my heart that it’s all about love.
Connell O’Donovan
Santa Cruz CA