Recent Article Concerning Church History

[Vex]

I recently stumbled across an article (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/97362/african-american-mormons-lds) which discusses this point in particular:

This history is a long one, stretching back to the inception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in the 1830s. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, ran for president in 1844 as a moderate abolitionist; ordained a black man, Elijah Abel; and offered to adopt one young black convert, Jane Manning James, as his spiritual daughter. Yet earlier in his life, Smith wrote anti-abolitionist screeds replete with racist sentiment typical of Christian pro-slavery apologists of antebellum America. In one 1836 letter to missionaries in the South, Smith excoriated northern abolitionists as the instigators of discord among southern slaves who, he argued, were generally happy.

Since no references are given; I'm hesitant to believe it directly. Does anyone have any insight or sources from which this could have been gleaned?

[Nevo]

Since no references are given; I'm hesitant to believe it directly. Does anyone have any insight or sources from which this could have been gleaned?

It is true.* See, for example, Messenger and Advocate 2 (April 1836), 289-291. (If you prefer to view scanned images of the newspaper, go here.)

Lester Bush, in his important Dialogue article, "Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview," summarized Joseph Smith's main objections to abolitionism as follows:

At least five major objections to the abolitionist cause can be identified in Joseph Smith’s discussion:

• First, he believed the course of abolitionism was “calculated to … set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society—chastity and virtue….”
  
• Second, any evil attending slavery should have been apparent to the “men of piety” of the South who had raised no objections to the institution.
  
• Third, the Prophet did “not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall …”; the signing of petitions in the North was nothing more than “an array of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South….”
  
• Fourth, the sons of Canaan (or Ham) whom Joseph Smith identified with the Negro were cursed with servitude by a “decree of Jehovah,” and that curse was “not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come … and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition … against the designs of the Lord, will learn … that God can do his work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel….”
  
• Fifth, there were several other biblical precedents for slavery (in the histories of Abraham, Leviticus, Ephesians, Timothy).

* I see Richard Bushman questions Joseph Smith's authorship of the letter. Bushman notes that the letter "responded to an abolitionist lecture in Kirtland, which Church leaders feared would be interpreted as a sign of friendship for the abolitionist cause. Writing in Joseph Smith's name, the author denied that there was any local sympathy for the speaker.... The letter echoed the antiabolitionist feeling that was peaking in the United States in 1836.... Caught up in this wave of antiabolitionist enthusiasm, the letter repeated all the familiar biblical arguments in support of slavery and warned traveling elders against preaching to slaves without their masters' permission" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 327).

Edited November 21, 2011 by Nevo

[Ariarates]

I see Richard Bushman questions Joseph Smith's authorship of the letter.

What reasons does Bushman give to question Joseph Smith's authorship?

[ged1650]

To All,

In the 1830's abolitionists were a fringe whack job group. Joseph Smith was never an Abolitionist nor would he want to be identified as such. Jacksonian America had different values and we shouldn't judge. I doubt anyone would even think to bring up the "seed of Ham" but this was the norm at that time.

Ged

[Freedom]

He does not speak specifically on this point, however in other places in the book he provides evidence that many letters attributed to Joseph could not written by him. I have not read it for some time so perhaps someone else can provide the references and arguments.

[Nevo]

What reasons does Bushman give to question Joseph Smith's authorship?

He doesn't give any, as far as I can see.

For what it's worth, Mark Staker, who has written the definitive study of the Kirtland period, attributes the letter to Joseph Smith. Interestingly, he also identifies the unnamed abolitionist speaker as none other than Elijah Lovejoy. See Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting for Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations (Salt Lake City: Kofford Books, 2009), 187.

[Calm]

To All,

In the 1830's abolitionists were a fringe whack job group.

Ged

Abolitionists were a mixed bag, much like the civil rights movement. Some promoted violence, others not, etc. Many were well respected ministers, others became wanted criminals.

Note: the term "abolitionist" first appeared in 1836 apparently...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abolitionist

Interesting reference on early history of the movement: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kBbGar6kYGQJ:www.gilderlehrman.org/teachers/scholars/HSP03.EAA8.Randazzo.pdf+Maryland+abolition+society&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESio1OVNAb5ArhIlRzEEMhW_6x16ZsQuqMerHYjYEtLoDJEoTz0re2i9atwQZuTqXwqaF26W1HFUsJG0cSkzktA4rCeJY2rq-zM5TB1XBmv_FAg_P-wjlTvrglSVUdqlS_kN_fcF&sig=AHIEtbQjp74QE2OnA0LmdEtwEgjVRjHw5A

Edited November 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[LeSellers]

Joseph Smith was never an Abolitionist nor would he want to be identified as such.

One of the planks of his platform in 1844 was the purchase of all slaves using proceeds from the sale of government lands. This (coupled with the economic insanity of slavery) would have ended the practice without the necessity of the War Between the States. The position was not born, like Diana, fully formed and mature. I must have arrived over time, developed line upon line. He was, we must recall, not only from a Jacksonian Democrat era, but a New Englander.

Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. I believe of all significant religious leaders of his day, he was the only one who taught the Africans had souls, and that they could be saved in the Kingdom of God. If not the only one, one of few.

Lehi

[Calm]

One of the planks of his platform in 1844 was the purchase of all slaves using proceeds from the sale of government lands. This (coupled with the economic insanity of slavery) would have ended the practice without the necessity of the War Between the States. The position was not born, like Diana, fully formed and mature. I must have arrived over time, developed line upon line. He was, we must recall, not only from a Jacksonian Democrat era, but a New Englander.

Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. I believe of all significant religious leaders of his day, he was the only one who taught the Africans had souls, and that they could be saved in the Kingdom of God. If not the only one, one of few.

Lehi

Not Diana, but Athena....I am shocked by your mistake.

[Gervin]

Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. I believe of all significant religious leaders of his day, he was the only one who taught the Africans had souls

The idea that the black man had a soul was part of the First Great Awakening (1730–1770) within evangelical Protestant sects such as the Methodists (Wesley opposed slavery), and Baptists. Even George Whitfield, who was not opposed to slavery, argued for the conversion of slaves to Christianity. Calvinists like Nathaniel Niles and Thomas Cooper spoke out against slavery, as did Methodists Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke. The list goes on and on. Samuel Hopkins wanted to educate the black man and return converts back to Africa as missionaries. Joseph Smith wasn't breaking any new ground in this regard, as far as I can tell.

[LeSellers]

Not Diana, but Athena....I am shocked by your mistake.

Sorry, I have a very bad head cold. Not thinking well.

Lehi

[ged1650]

I disagree. Joseph Smith was not an Abolitionist. The fact he wanted to relocate the freed slaves demonstrates he was not an abolitionist. This ran counter to what the Abolitionists believed. He was a product of Jacksonian America. Abolitionists were part of the crazy fringe, not the mainstream.

[Calm]

Define abolitionist, perhaps we are using it differently. Many use it as equivalent to anti-slavery. As the link I gave indicated, Abolition Societies were pretty widespread and not fringe elements.

Edited November 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[LeSellers]

1. (especially prior to the Civil War) a person who advocated or supported the abolition of slavery in the U.S.

2. a person who favors the abolition of any law or practice deemed harmful to society: the abolitionists who are opposed to capital punishment.

1.the act of abolishing: the abolition of war.

2.the state of being abolished; annulment; abrogation: the abolition of unjust laws; the abolition of unfair taxes.

3.the legal prohibition and ending of slavery, especially of slavery of blacks in the U.S.

to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void: to abolish slavery.

There's nothing there about anything to do with relocation.

Abolition was not fringe. It was very much mainstream in the North, and not so very far behind in the South. Many Southerners, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington included, were, in principle, abolitionists, they just could not figure a way out of it. Joseph would have given them the path they sought.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

* I see Richard Bushman questions Joseph Smith's authorship of the letter. Bushman notes that the letter "responded to an abolitionist lecture in Kirtland, which Church leaders feared would be interpreted as a sign of friendship for the abolitionist cause. Writing in Joseph Smith's name, the author denied that there was any local sympathy for the speaker.... The letter echoed the antiabolitionist feeling that was peaking in the United States in 1836.... Caught up in this wave of antiabolitionist enthusiasm, the letter repeated all the familiar biblical arguments in support of slavery and warned traveling elders against preaching to slaves without their masters' permission" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 327).

There is no reason to think that somebody misappropriated Joseph Smith's name to publish this letter. Bushman evidently just needed to remind readers every so often that he was an apologist. The only person who could have fraudulently used Smith's name in this way was Oliver Cowdery, the newspaper's editor. But Bushman apparently thinks so little of his own argument that he didn't accuse Cowdery, by name, of this deception. Certainly Joseph Smith would have objected if someone had used his name to support a pro-slavery argument in the church newspaper which Smith himself disagreed with.

Given Bushman's willingness to acknowledge so many of Smith's other lapses in moral and ethical judgment, I don't see why he couldn't do so here as well, particularly since this was not Smith's final say on the issue of slavery.

[KevinG]

Yes of course, Bushman couldn't be completely fair in his presentation of Joseph's History because he is an...

(cue spooke music) dun, dun, dunnnnn...

Apologist!

Of course critics (who are not to be called anti-mormon) know that where there is innuendo there are dark evil Mormon secrets to be revealed.

The single letter attributed to Joseph does not fit the pattern of Joseph's life and other teachings. Worst case he was a product of his times when it came to race and politics and outgrew it. Best case he didn't write the letter.

Edited November 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[ged1650]

Lehi, Calmaoriah,

It depends on the time frame as to whether or not the Abolitionists were mainstream or not. The mid to late 1850's were the age of the Republicans and there was a strong Abolitionist fervor in the North. The 1830's and 1840's saw opinions and atitudes similar to Nevo's first post. I believed as you did until discussing slavery issues with my son. He is in post grad studies at North Carolina State and his specialty is slavery from Colonial to Jacksonian America. In the 1830's, Abolitionist had the same conotation as Militia did in the 1990's, meaning lunatic fringe. It was a perjorative, you understand, a massive slam.

I have been trying to reach him, my son, for references but have not been able to. When I do I will list them. I won't be able to link them because I am computer retarded.

Ged

[ged1650]

I said post-grad. I meant graduate (he's getting his masters, and I'm proud).

[Calm]

You mean the specific term then, not just the concept of being anti-slavery....that it was attached to a specific group of people and not just a generic term as it is today, such as "Democrats" refers to a specific party and not everyone who believes that democracy is the best form of government, etc.?

[Nevo]

Abolition was not fringe. It was very much mainstream in the North, and not so very far behind in the South.

Abolitionism was not at all mainstream in the North in 1836 (when the M&A letter to the editor was written). In fact, in the mid-1830s abolitionists only made up a "tiny minority in the North" (Walters, American Reformers, 1815-1860, rev. ed. [New York: Hill and Wang, 1997], 86).

According to Sean Wilentz, "by attacking not merely southern slavery but all forms of racial inequality, the abolitionists appeared to the vast majority of white Americans like fanatics, at war with all social order and decency. For every convert to the cause, there were hundreds of northerners who were repulsed by what the New Hampshire anti-abolitionist writer Thomas Russell Sullivan called the movement's 'false zeal and political aggression.' Although the abolitionists successfully reawakened moral concern over slavery, they paid for it by becoming repeated targets for mob violence and official repression" (Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln [New York: Norton, 2005], 403-404).

Even many who opposed slavery, like the young Abraham Lincoln, believed that abolitionists went too far, and did more harm than good.

[thesometimesaint]

The US has had a long and troubled history with Race and Slavery. Were there hot heads on both sides of the issue of slavery? You bet. But I'll give the nod to the Church for generally opposing slavery, while loathing war.

[LeSellers]

Abolitionism was not at all mainstream in the North in 1836 (when the M&A letter to the editor was written). In fact, in the mid-1830s abolitionists only made up a "tiny minority in the North" (Walters, American Reformers, 1815-1860, rev. ed. [New York: Hill and Wang, 1997], 86).

According to the 1828 edition of Miriam Webster's magnum opus. the word "abolition" didn't even exist, so I'll gladly grant that Joseph probably wasn't one by the standards of the time.

However, the word has come to mean something very specific in the XX and XXI, so we are not out of line to call him an abolitionist by the standards of our own time.

England and USmerica, in the words of (Wilde, Shaw, Churchill, take your pick) are two people separated by a common language. It's obvious that the XIX and the XXI are similarly situated.

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[ged1650]

To All,

Abolitionists, with a capital a, was a movement. This would be not so much a party as a movement. Think ALF or ELF (animal liberation front or earth liberation front). Not just supporters of PETA, but rabid followers who cannot abide any disagreement with their cause. The Anti-slavery movement was stalled because the Abolitionists were part of it and this hurt them.

Lehi,

Whatever we term abolition today matters little. We can only undertand this issue from the time period.

To TheSometimesaint,

If we remember our Church and Utah history, The Territory of Deseret entered the USA as a slave Territory due to the fact many Southern converts held slaves. The Church was a microcosm of the country, some, in the church, opposed slavery, some were anti-slavery and some held slaves. The same faction which opposed slavery opposed polygamy and made life very difficult for the Church. It is a generally held incorrect tradition in the Church that the saints were anti-slavery in Missouri. This wasn't true. Most in the North had no opinion concerning slavery. The same is true for the membership of the Church.

Ged

[LeSellers]

Whatever we term abolition today matters little. We can only undertand this issue from the time period.

In terms of discussing things today, what "abolitionist" means today is very pertinent. Joseph Smith was an abolitionist for you and me (well, maybe not you) because he was for abolishing slavery and freeing the slaves by buying them form their owners.

That he may not have seen himself as an "Abolitionist" is germane if we are investigating the writings and statements he (or others near to him) made in his own day. Let's assume he said, "I am not an abolitionist." In this case, it would be important to understand whet he meant by the term. However, let's say that he said he was in favor of freeing the slaves (we don't have to assume, since that's exactly what he said). No one in the XXI would be wrong in inferring that Joseph was an abolitionist.

We face the same problem when discussing the VIII Article of faith. "Translate" does not mean in 2011 what it did in 1842.

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[ged1650]

Lehi,

To further this conversation is fine with me. I guess we are going to disagree. I doubt we could call Joseph Smith anti-slavery just because he wanted to free the slaves. He would have to want to free the slaves for the sake of freeing them. From what I can tell he wanted to free them more for pacific reasons. He wanted to avoid the impending war he had seen in vision. Without the slavery question the Civil War ( I can almost call it the Just Cause but not the War of Northern Agression) would have never been. Sending the slaves back to Africa, a place most had never seen, was the solution to avoid a costly war. It was estimated it would cost $7 million to purchase the slaves. The Civil War cost $8 million (these millions could be billions. I can't remember the figures). This was his reason for freeing the slaves, not because he was opposed to slavery. Joseph was very progressive in his view of race, ordaining a black man. I still can't even call him necessarily anti-slavery just because he wanted to purchase the slaves. He, Joseph Smith, gave no anti-slavery talks from the pulpit. I see nothing in print where he suggested a member dispose of his slaves (there were slave holding Mormons). These are my arguements. Refute them. I'm having fun. I hope you are.

Ged