Podcast: Download (31.1MB)
Subscribe: RSS
In this episode of the Mormon History Guy podcast, Kate Kelly Harline interviews Russell Stevenson (author of Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables and author of the forthcoming, For the Cause of Righteousness: A Documentary History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013). They discuss the meaning and ramifications of the LDS Church’s new statement on “Race and the Priesthood.” Russell traces the origins, course, and trajectory of the Saints’ relationship with the black community and racial exclusion.
This podcast is posted here by permission of Russell Stevenson. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of FairMormon or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
As I listen to you talk I became aware it seems to be you were only speaking from the natural man
understandiing at no time did I feel the words you spoke were edited by the Holy Spirit.
Good podcast. I would eliminate use of the word “progressive” however. You seem to use that word as a synonym of “correct.” Instead I would just use the word “correct”. The word progressive has negative political connotations.
A wonderfully informative conversation – thank you.
Russell made clear reference was made to Official Declaration 2 delivered in 1978 shortly after discussing of Lowry Nelson’s correspondence with the first presidency in 1947. No mention was made, however, of the 1949 official church document, “The Negroes: Proclamation to the World,” delivered on behalf of the first presidency by George Albert Smith. This document seems historically significant in terms of the history status of this policy/doctrine, unless it is not authentic (see my references below)
For the record, here it is:
The Negroes: A Proclamation to the World
The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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 the blessings which we now have.”
The position of the Church regarding he Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely that the conduct of spirits in the pre mortal 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 make 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.
(This proclamation was made by George Albert Smith on August 17th 1949, speaking on behalf of the first presidency of the church.)
I had a difficult time finding this “Proclamation” after discovering a reference to it on Wikipedia. But I finally found a facsimile of it here offered by critic of the church:
http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-race-and-priesthood-statement.html
Obviously, its similarity to “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” points to the question of what we count as authoritative. For comparison see:
http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
Great comments, all!
Sharon:
Thank you for expressing your concern. It is unfortunate that you did not have a spiritual experience while listening to this podcast. Speaking from my end, I can say that I am doing my best to search truth “from the best books” and that the learning of history (esp. our own) has the power to bring about “the salvation of Zion.” As a commentator, I can only promise to put forth a good faith effort to understand our past in all of its complexity. As Boyd K. Packer said, it is our responsibility to understand how ordinary men could be prophets. I don’t claim to be giving you revelation; only God can do that! I only hope that after listening to my work, you perhaps learned something new that you did not know before.
BenTanner:
Doesn’t that depend on one’s political perspective? For many, this title is worn as a badge of honor. While I also think it is wise to speak of truth and error, that also does the historical subject injustice of bifurcating the questions they faced. By simply saying they were correct or incorrect, then it strips them of the contributions they did make. I think it just to acknowledge people who were forward-thinking, even if they didn’t have every answer–that they were seeking to make progress.
J. Turn:
Thank you for posting that. The statement in question has an interesting provenance. Theologically, it doesn’t break a lot of new ground. It relies on the premortal and Cain explanations, both of which had been well-established by 1949. It was not “a Proclamation to the World.” At most, it was a letter kept on file for individual correspondents. In published form, it can only be found in John Stewart’s volume, Mormonism and the Negro (which is an adamant defense of the priesthood ban).
The only person I was upset with was Zebedee Coltrin and his muddying the waters and if others were not weak in that area they would not have gone along with it. I also think you have to take in the era not as how today folks try to project their interpretation we can not take today’s yard stick and try to apply it to yesterday customs, and thinking.
I know Joseph Smith is a Prophet of the Lord, and you seem to let that hang out there Russell in one of your statements. I was not expecting any Revelation from you Russell just that when one speak on topics like this we pray and hope that our words are edify by the spirit and it isn’t totally speaking from one own point of view.
I know it is hard and I also know sugar coating things is not any better but when the spirit edifies truth is able to surface.
In All Due Respect
Russell,
I don’t understand. The document has “A Proclamation to the World” written right across the top. It is not in the form of a letter.
Whether or not it “breaks new theological ground,” the first presidency at the time explicitly affirmed these things as doctrine – and not as policy. How should one weigh this against the recent “race and the priesthood” article in the new Gospel Topics section of the church’s website which is not attributed to the first presidency?
On what do you base your claim that it was “a letter kept on file for individual correspondents?
Thanks in advance for considering these questions
JTurn,
That “Proclamation to the World” on the website you shared is a crude forgery. It was created by someone recently, using word processing software, mimicking the style of the 1995 Proclamation on the Family. It is not authentic.
JTurn:
I assure you that is a forgery. I’ve researched in the original papers of Lester Bush and published versions of the account and not one of them uses that template. The most widely accessible account (which isn’t so widely accessible now) is from Stewart’s volume, Mormonism and the Negro (published in 1960). The heading reads “Statement by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Negro Question.” It was meant, it appears, in the spirit of mockery of the Proclamation. Outside of Stewart’s volume, the document has not been published in any venue.
Thanks Mike.
That seems plausible – even likely. Do you have independent evidence to support your forgery claim?
Obviously, what’s more important is whether the body of the text is authentic.
I have since found the statement on FAIR Mormon website.
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements
It seems to match, with the exception of the title identifying it as a “Proclamation to the World.” So that would seem to be the only aspect of forgery. If it is, that is not so amusing. I will contact the author of the website.
While on the same FAIR Mormon website page, I found the 1969 statement of the first presidency. I noticed that it was addressed to “General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.”
There were no instructions that it be be read to congregations. Do you know how it was used? Was it ever shared with congregations? if not, do you understand why?
I was struck by its references to Joseph Smith teaching the principle, the admission of not knowing the reason, but that it was dictated by God and that that David O. McKay stated that it was related to “man”s pre-existent state”
I ordered the John Stewart’s book “russellwades” mentioned above. Hopefully that will give me more context and information.
Thanks
Thanks Russell,
Again, that seems most likely the case.
What of my other questions?
1) I Assume the body of the text is authentic and documents the official position of the George Albert Smith’s first presidency?
2) Whether or not it “breaks new theological ground,” the first presidency at the time explicitly affirmed these things as doctrine – and not as policy. How should one weigh this against the recent “race and the priesthood” article in the new Gospel Topics section of the church’s website which is not attributed to the first presidency? [I understand I can only get a variety of personal opinions – but if you could answer with empathy toward one who might be honestly struggling with a perception of an imbalance in authoritative stature , I would appreciate that.]
2) On what do you base your claim that it was “a letter kept on file for individual correspondents? [Do you mean this was a sort f form letter sent out address inquiries? Whose?
3) [With regard to the 1969 statement] There were no instructions that it be be read to congregations. Do you know how it was used? Was it ever shared with congregations? if not, do you understand why?
4) What do you make of the Joseph Smith “doctrinal” attribution in the 1969 letter? Was it the president of the church acting on misinformation? Or is the information provided by current historians – the ones acknowledged in “race in the priesthood” statement – authoritative?
Thanks for your responses so far, and thanks in advance for consideration of these questions.
Hi JTurn:
1) It leaves out a substantial portion of the text but what is there is valid. As mentioned in an earlier comment, you can access the entirety of the text in Stewart’s volume.
2) It does represent the views of the First Presidency at the time. That’s not really up for dispute. And in contradistinction to the latest statement, it affirms many of the old rationales for the priesthood ban. But a letter from the First Presidency does not represent a definitive stance any more than the latest statement does. I have an extremely high standard for what is considered hard-and-fast doctrine–as do Church leaders. The doctrines claimed re: the priesthood ban were always in flux–Brigham Young believing one thing and later church leaders believing another. So the fact that the First Presidency authored the text doesn’t trouble me–it’s simply an indication of a faith community that had become entrenched in racial thought.
3) To be clear, I said “at most” it was a letter and that its provenance is not clear. I have corresponded with Lester Bush on the topic, and several decades ago, he found the document in the archives. He says that excerpts of the statement found its way into several letters the First Presidency sent to inquirers. The salient point here is that it’s not been published in the usual place for First Presidency Statements–Clark’s Messages of the First Presidency.
4) Re: the 1969 statement, it was published in the Deseret News and was a successor to a statement released in General Conference in 1963. It was largely in response to the hostility of the press over the previous two years. If we trace the JS attribution to its source, it dated to comments made by Zebedee Coltrin and George Q. Cannon, both of whom said that JS either denied blacks the priesthood or, in Coltrin’s case, claimed that JS gave the priesthood to Elijah Ables and then stripped it from him on revelation. Thomas Shreeve claims that Elijah admitted this to him in the early 1840s, but the Shreeve account doesn’t hold water in the face of contemporary documentation from 1843 and 1845, all of which confirms that Elijah still held the priesthood even after moving from Nauvoo.
Thanks Russell,
I appreciate your response and your research efforts and sharing you personal views on this matter.
Best wishes