Brigham Before The Ban

[Stone holm]

So, just to be clear, are you saying that concern about "amalgamation" increased following Brigham Young's ordination of Walker Lewis?

No. I think the concern began back in Nauvoo and grew. One of the most definite lines in the sand drawn by racists is miscegenation. Some would tie it to Biblical references to Sethites intermarrying with descendants of Cain. Racism was virulent all over America until it finally exploded in cultural upheaval in the 1960's. Indiana was particularly bad with Organizations like the John Birch Society linking the civil rights movement with communism. Indiana was also the site of 20th Century resurgence of the KKK .

[Nevo]

So, just to be clear, are you saying that concern about "amalgamation" increased following Brigham Young's ordination of Walker Lewis?

I don't know about others but Brigham Young's concern about "amalgamation" seems to have increased when he learned that Walker Lewis's son, Enoch Lewis, had married a white member of the Church and had a child with her. His response to the news was harsh.

Also, I'm pretty sure it was William Smith that ordained Walker Lewis an elder, not Brigham Young.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Nevo

[USU78]

No. I think the concern began back in Nauvoo and grew. One of the most definite lines in the sand drawn by racists is miscegenation. Some would tie it to Biblical references to Sethites intermarrying with descendants of Cain. Racism was virulent all over America until it finally exploded in cultural upheaval in the 1960's. Indiana was particularly bad with Organizations like the John Birch Society linking the civil rights movement with communism. Indiana was also the site of 20th Century resurgence of the KKK .

I don't see the connection, other than in the press, between JBS and alleged racism/antimiscegenation in the '60s. It is, moreover, fairly inapposite to bring JBS into a conversation about post Nauvoo/pre Deseret BY, wouldn't you say?

[canard78]

Then how do you explain the fact that Brigham Young ordained Walker Lewis?

He didn't. William Smith did:

Elder William I. Appleby Journal (actually written in mid-50s based on notes):

19 May 1847 – “Left this Afternoon, for Lowell, where I arrived in about one hour and a half, distance 25. miles. Here I found a branch of the Church of about 20 members in tolerable good standing. Elder [Darius] Longee presiding. In this Branch there is a Coloured Brother, (An Elder ordained by Elder Wm. Smith while he was a member of the Church, contrary though to the order of the Church or the Law of the Priesthood, as the Descendants of Ham are not entitled to that privilege) by the name of Walker Lewis. He appears to be a meek humble man, and an example for his more whiter brethren to follow. At this place there are some thousands of girls, working in the Factories, which are the most extensive of any in the United States.”

William I. Appleby - Letter to Brigham Young, (which did not reach Young until around the end of November 1847, as he had already left Winter Quarters, Nebraska and was enroute to "California"/Utah):

31 May 1847 –

“At Lowell...I found a coloured brother by name of ‘Lewis’ a barber, an Elder in the Church, ordained some years ago by William Smith. This Lewis I was informed has also a son who is married to a white girl [Enoch Lovejoy Lewis and Mary Matilda Webster Lewis]. and both members of the Church there. Now dear Br. I wish to know if this is the order of God or tolerated in this Church ie to ordain Negroes to the Priesthood and allow amalgamation [inter-racial marriage]. If it is I desire to Know, as I have Yet got to learn it.”

[canard78]

There was increased concern about "amalgamation" at least one of the later Prophets expressed his paranoia about "amalgamation", and in fact I think the fact that white women of my generation began crossing the marital taboo line, including the mother of our current POTUS, finally started breaking down the racial phobias as more and more people had nieces and nephews, grandchildren and cousins who were of mixed race. Even as they extended the Priesthood, there was lingering concerns about amalgamation that it somehow heralded the end of times or something, but the Church was ready, possibly more ready than some of its leaders, to accept the cultural change in 1978. They were not ready, however, before the cultural revolutions of the 1960's.

Even Joseph Smith, heralded as a progressive abolitionist (including by me earlier) was against inter-racial marriage.

Quinn, Origins of Power:

2 Jan 1843 – Joseph Smith opposes inter-racial marriage: “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species”. (p. 636.) On 8 Feb 1844, as chief justice, he fines two African-Americans in Nauvoo $25 and $5 for “trying to marry white women”. (p. 642)

Maybe I was wrong, maybe Joseph would have introduced the priesthood ban too.

[Stone holm]

I don't see the connection, other than in the press, between JBS and alleged racism/antimiscegenation in the '60s. It is, moreover, fairly inapposite to bring JBS into a conversation about post Nauvoo/pre Deseret BY, wouldn't you say?

Looking at the long view. Took me a second to figure out the acronym. Have you read the protests that Harold B. Lee raised against building the Temple in Washington, DC? Not that he supported Ezra Taft Benson's dalliance with JBS, but there was quite a cultural hurdle that had to be overcome. I will look up what Joseph F. Smith had to say about amalgamation when I get home. I do not favor throwing Brigham Young under the bus and ignoring the span of years from him until 1978. I think the Lord had a reason, it just wasn't the one that got spun and it had to do with deficiencies in the attitudes of the whites and not any problem with the blacks.

[Questing Beast]

There's a huge difference in allowing "blacks" to hold priesthood and enter temples, and wanting to see them marry "whites". JS had his religious world view of what the origin of "blacks" was. Wanting them to be kept to themselves isn't even evidence of racism for the time. Everything had changed by the mid 20th century, with people abhorring interracial marriages becoming a minority....

[DonBradley]

The church would not have broken up, nor even been harmed, by Brigham Young continuing to allow the ordination of blacks. Blacks had been ordained for over a decade by the time he instituted the ban. And he did so on the eve of abolitionism's surge and ultimate triumph.

The Strangites formalized their position in favor of ordaining blacks to the high priesthood in 1849. And there is no evidence that this caused internal dissension amongst them or hindered their growth.

Also, it's difficult to imagine the early saints who accepted new scripture, polygamy, migration to the western desert, and such to suddenly lose faith if Brigham Young simply continued Joseph's practices and the scriptural idea all are alike unto God.

Whatever the reason for the ban, it does not appear to have been because the saints wouldn't have been able to handle the ordination of blacks.

Don

[Questing Beast]

Ordination is one thing, having a "black prophet" quite another thing. Then there is the interracial marriage issue. Too much for the time. Still too much largely for our time. The Church has had, what ONE? Black Seventy, and he was not a first quorum one either. That was years ago, when there were two quorums of Seventy only....

[Stone holm]

There's a huge difference in allowing "blacks" to hold priesthood and enter temples, and wanting to see them marry "whites". JS had his religious world view of what the origin of "blacks" was. Wanting them to be kept to themselves isn't even evidence of racism for the time. Everything had changed by the mid 20th century, with people abhorring interracial marriages becoming a minority....

Yeah, I would put it a little past the mid-century. Joseph Smith's abolitionist stance, I think was not that far off from what Jefferson and Madison had namely "colonization" which was basically ship the American blacks back to Africa or to an island somewhere. What Jefferson and Madison couldn't come to grips with was how could you free people who had been treated so badly and not have them hate you, probably because they knew if they had been treated that badly they most certainly would have hated their masters. So they both favored "colonization", only problem was that free blacks in the North didn't want to go back to Africa or to the Caribean.

[canard78]

15,000,000 / 7,000,000,000,000 = 0.00214 which is 0.214% or about 1/5th of one percent

It's 14.4mn and 7.1bn. When talking about people actually are active and practicing Mormons I'd usually take about a third of the 14.4mn.

So active Mormons makes something between:

0.05 and 0.2%. Even with a 50% activity rate we'd have about 0.1%

[Stone holm]

The church would not have broken up, nor even been harmed, by Brigham Young continuing to allow the ordination of blacks. Blacks had been ordained for over a decade by the time he instituted the ban. And he did so on the eve of abolitionism's surge and ultimate triumph.

The Strangites formalized their position in favor of ordaining blacks to the high priesthood in 1849. And there is no evidence that this caused internal dissension amongst them or hindered their growth.

Also, it's difficult to imagine the early saints who accepted new scripture, polygamy, migration to the western desert, and such to suddenly lose faith if Brigham Young simply continued Joseph's practices and the scriptural idea all are alike unto God.

Whatever the reason for the ban, it does not appear to have been because the saints wouldn't have been able to handle the ordination of blacks.

Don

Have to disagree with you. I don't think we can say that because of the other small groups of restoration gospel didn't have a problem, that there necessarily would not have been a problem amongst the whites in the Church. Also, I would hazard the guess without any proof, that we now have more blacks in total in the LDS Church than in all those churches combined -- could be wrong, but i bet we do.

[canard78]

Yeah, I would put it a little past the mid-century. Joseph Smith's abolitionist stance, I think was not that far off from what Jefferson and Madison had namely "colonization" which was basically ship the American blacks back to Africa or to an island somewhere. What Jefferson and Madison couldn't come to grips with was how could you free people who had been treated so badly and not have them hate you, probably because they knew if they had been treated that badly they most certainly would have hated their masters. So they both favored "colonization", only problem was that free blacks in the North didn't want to go back to Africa or to the Caribean.

I know Elder Stapley said so in his letter to Romney. But what's the source on that?

[Stone holm]

I know Elder Stapley said so in his letter to Romney. But what's the source on that?

Source on which? Jefferson and Madison or Joseph Smith, or are you talking about the earlier post. If to the earlier post, secondary source "David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism".

[DonBradley]

Stone Holm,

I'm not saying that just because other 'small groups' didn't have a problem, the church wouldn't have.

First, at the time that Brigham instituted the ban and the Strang affirmed the practice of ordaining blacks, the Strangites numbered in the thousands an constituted a significant rival to the "Brighamites." And I'm only using parallels to demonstrate that there's nothing the least bit obvious about the claim that the church would have broken up if we continued to do so.

Second, I'm pointing out that the church had been ordaining blacks for about a dozen years before Brigham imposed the ban. Since there is no evidence that this was a major problem during those years, why assume that it would have become one in the years just succeeding this?

Third, I'm pointing out that attitudes toward blacks were liberalizing during this period, not worsening. Brigham instituted the ban just as most of the country was about to get behind the abolitionist cause.

Fourth, I'm pointing out that the saints were willing to accept all sorts of things that caused them personal suffering; so it's silly to think they would leave the church over something so minor as the continuation of people of another race being ordained to the priesthood.

I might also add that neither Joseph nor Brigham, nor the Lord for that matter, seems to have been terribly concerned at this time with giving the saints doctrine they would find easy to accept. Quite the opposite. Mysteries upon mysteries were set forth during this time period, and those who couldn't handle them simply left.

The idea that the church could handle the host of novel and difficult practices and doctrines presented to them in this period but couldn't handle the continuation of Joseph's policy of ordaining black members is ludicrous. It provides a shallow justification for the ban that explains nothing.

Don

Edited July 1, 2013 by DonBradley

[Avatar4321]

Looking at the long view. Took me a second to figure out the acronym. Have you read the protests that Harold B. Lee raised against building the Temple in Washington, DC? Not that he supported Ezra Taft Benson's dalliance with JBS, but there was quite a cultural hurdle that had to be overcome. I will look up what Joseph F. Smith had to say about amalgamation when I get home. I do not favor throwing Brigham Young under the bus and ignoring the span of years from him until 1978. I think the Lord had a reason, it just wasn't the one that got spun and it had to do with deficiencies in the attitudes of the whites and not any problem with the blacks.

What protests did President Lee raise?

[USU78]

Looking at the long view. Took me a second to figure out the acronym. Have you read the protests that Harold B. Lee raised against building the Temple in Washington, DC? Not that he supported Ezra Taft Benson's dalliance with JBS, but there was quite a cultural hurdle that had to be overcome. I will look up what Joseph F. Smith had to say about amalgamation when I get home. I do not favor throwing Brigham Young under the bus and ignoring the span of years from him until 1978. I think the Lord had a reason, it just wasn't the one that got spun and it had to do with deficiencies in the attitudes of the whites and not any problem with the blacks.

The JBS was an anti-Soviet movement. They thought they had proof of $$ coming from the Kremlin going into racebaiters' and civil rights' activists' coffers. I have looked at some of that evidence and would agree with them that there was cause for concern. It is quite one thing to point out the over-coziness between Moscow and some, not all, of the black rights figures in them there days, especially when tensions were so very high. It is quite another to be against political equality. I believe you are falling for the trap that anything said that puts in question any civil rights figure from those days is perforce racist and vicious. ETB's quotes on the subject are instructive and give context. As a former cabinet-level official, he had access to a fair amount of information. Nothing coming out of the post-Glasnost era, when the KGB archives were aired out, gave the lie to anything ETB ever said.

Of course, if one is in lockstep with Godbeite antireligion and especially antiMormon sensibilities, it's a walk in the park to dredge up antiSoviet statements during the worst of the Cold War in order to offend racebaiting sacred cows.

I would imagine you, naturally, eschew jumping on bandwagons peopled by the ignorant.

[canard78]

Source on which? Jefferson and Madison or Joseph Smith, or are you talking about the earlier post. If to the earlier post, secondary source "David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism".

The source that Joseph's anti-slavery stance was also a repatriation policy.

[canard78]

Looking at the long view. Took me a second to figure out the acronym. Have you read the protests that Harold B. Lee raised against building the Temple in Washington, DC? Not that he supported Ezra Taft Benson's dalliance with JBS, but there was quite a cultural hurdle that had to be overcome. I will look up what Joseph F. Smith had to say about amalgamation when I get home. I do not favor throwing Brigham Young under the bus and ignoring the span of years from him until 1978. I think the Lord had a reason, it just wasn't the one that got spun and it had to do with deficiencies in the attitudes of the whites and not any problem with the blacks.

"The Lord had a reason..."??

What evidence is there that this was the will of the Lord in the first place?

[canard78]

JBS?

[canard78]

Stone Holm,

I'm not saying that just because other 'small groups' didn't have a problem, the church wouldn't have.

First, at the time that Brigham instituted the ban and the Strang affirmed the practice of ordaining blacks, the Strangites numbered in the thousands an constituted a significant rival to the "Brighamites." And I'm only using parallels to demonstrate that there's nothing the least bit obvious about the claim that the church would have broken up if we continued to do so.

Second, I'm pointing out that the church had been ordaining blacks for about a dozen years before Brigham imposed the ban. Since there is no evidence that this was a major problem during those years, why assume that it would have become one in the years just succeeding this?

Third, I'm pointing out that attitudes toward blacks were liberalizing during this period, not worsening. Brigham instituted the ban just as most of the country was about to get behind the abolitionist cause.

Fourth, I'm pointing out that the saints were willing to accept all sorts of things that caused them personal suffering; so it's silly to think they would leave the church over something so minor as the continuation of people of another race being ordained to the priesthood.

I might also add that neither Joseph nor Brigham, nor the Lord for that matter, seems to have been terribly concerned at this time with giving the saints doctrine they would find easy to accept. Quite the opposite. Mysteries upon mysteries were set forth during this time period, and those who couldn't handle them simply left.

The idea that the church could handle the host of novel and difficult practices and doctrines presented to them in this period but couldn't handle the continuation of Joseph's policy of ordaining black members is ludicrous. It provides a shallow justification for the ban that explains nothing.

Don

This sums it up perfectly. I'm on my mobile but will rep it from my laptop later

[Stone holm]

"The Lord had a reason..."??

What evidence is there that this was the will of the Lord in the first place?

Well if it wasn't then there were quite a few prophets that missed the memo. I am not saying that I go with everything that comes out of a prophets mouth, but if there comes a time when The Lord wants something to happen, then it usually happens.

[Stone holm]

This sums it up perfectly. I'm on my mobile but will rep it from my laptop later

The north didn't really start getting into the abolitionist cause until the soldiers went south and started writing home about the conditions, and even then racism remained very strong in the north. If what they wrote in David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism is true, Harold B Lee opposed the Washington Temple because there were too many blacks out there.

[canard78]

Well if it wasn't then there were quite a few prophets that missed the memo. I am not saying that I go with everything that comes out of a prophets mouth, but if there comes a time when The Lord wants something to happen, then it usually happens.

Over 1000 years of apostasy? Don't we talk about that being caused by the weakness of mankind and god granting people their agency?

The only thing I can see is prejudice and assumptions.

[Stone holm]

Over 1000 years of apostasy? Don't we talk about that being caused by the weakness of mankind and god granting people their agency?

The only thing I can see is prejudice and assumptions.

Oh I agree on the prejudice part. And I don't want you to think that I am saying The Lord approved of the racism anymore than He approved of the drinking and smoking that continued until the W of W became a commandment. But, I think that He knew that the Blacks would not get treated well. I travelled to Salt Lake City in 1977. While we were there we attended a Stake Conference near Temple Square. The Stake President made some of the most bigoted statements in reference to the Native Americans that I have heard in my life over the pulpit. I was aghast. The next year they extended the Priesthood to the Brethern of African descent. I am thinking we were barely ready for it even then. My entire youth was spent amongst racists in Indiana. It is still prevalent there. But, I have never seen a religious group which had had our practices so readily and willingly change directions as did the Saints when the word came down from on high. I think The Lord had prepared the nation and the nation had prepared the Saints to make the change without contention. But a large part of a generation had to die off first.