Was Joseph Smith a racist?

[cdowis]

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation.

Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p269

[bluebell]

Given when and where he lived, he probably was to some extent.  

But it's hard to know, from the quote, if JS is talking about all 'negros' or those in the United states who were literally born as slaves.  Because obviously, being born a slave will have an impact on someone and change who they are to a large degree.  If JS was saying that the only difference between whites and blacks (at that time in history in the U.S.) was the station to which each was born, and the obvious consequences of that, then that's not a racist statement.

 

[cdowis]

To me it is clear that he is  speaking of those who were born as slaves, and not a racial comment.

[clarkgoble]

My impression was that he completely rejected the ubiquitous view that Africans were inferior. Given the times that's an incredibly progressive view. However he'd still be considered racist I think in that he seemed willing to compromise on his egalitarian principles over race in order to get things done. You particularly see that after the Missouri War where Joseph was far more guarded and tended to make more compromise with slavers. That's completely understandable after an extermination order. And ultimately it gave Mormons in Nauvoo at best an extra year or two of relative peace. However looking back one wishes he'd stood up a bit more and perhaps have avoided Brigham Young's views on race and the entire next 100 years of racism in the Church.

While attributing the racial ban to Joseph Smith is a fraught position - clearly he ordained some blacks to the priesthood - it's also clear that there were blacks among his immediate acquaintances he could have ordained but did not. Were there a larger history of ordination and egalitarianism I think the history of the Church would have been quite different. Of course it's easy to say that in hindsight. When looking back we should also remember the stresses he was under and how the vast majority of the public (including many sympathetic to abolitionists) viewed a truly egalitarian view on race. Still, it's one of those, "what might have been" type wishes. 

[Jeanne]

I don't really know...but my impression of him is that he was not.  This was one of the images of the church that comes from Brigham Young.  How Joseph Smith relates in anyway to the implications of the Book of Mormon..I do not understand.  Of course, I still do not understand.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation.

Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p269

His comment was definitely racist, although he may not have meant it that way. I wonder how common the word "racist" was in his day? He believed what he was told most likely. He wasn't inspired IMO, in this area at all. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

To me it is clear that he is  speaking of those who were born as slaves, and not a racial comment.

I think so too.

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

His comment was definitely racist, although he may not have meant it that way. I wonder how common the word "racist" was in his day? He believed what he was told most likely. He wasn't inspired IMO, in this area at all. 

Word Origin and History for racist - 1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race

So the word "racist" was not used at all until the early 1930's.  Back in Joseph Smith's day the position of the black person was what it was and everyone accepted it at the time There really was no term used like "racism".  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation.

Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p269

What I find is very progressive is the part of his comment that "they" can raise themselves up, and did not need white men, or any other to do so. In short they have souls (no surprise there) and that they have the "mind" and the God given "ability" to better themselves and the world around them. In short, were they not enslaved they could and world be a great people. Slavery was what was holding them back. This kind of talk in most places in the U.S. at that time would have gotten Joseph killed, or jailed. Even today many who think they are of a progressive mind believe that African Americans can only advance with their help. It was always the case "then and do now" that they have the "God given abilities" given to all who have souls, all that is needed is for society to get out of the way and let them reach every potential to which they were born in heaven's sphere, just as all others, Joseph a racist; no. As he ordained (Joseph),  African Americans to the Priesthood (more that one) and one who served as a General Authority, for the rest of his life. Latter-day Church leaders (back in the early Church) , well that is another matter. But for the time that they were denied were denied the Priesthood, oh what a missed opportunity. It seems to me, that whenever on member of an African American family joins the Church, many of their immediate family, and often extended family, join as well. 7 of our 11 convert baptisms in my Ward, this year were as a result of two sisters joining the Church were family members of the two who joined first. Some speak of early Church leaders comments, and why most won't join, but I never attended any Church service in my life with someone of another race until I attended LDS Services. 

The great thing about our Faith, is that we have leadership that can and will change from errors, according to need. As Moses prayed and pleaded twice on the behalf of God's people, and changed God's mind about destroying his chosen people. So do we have Prophets that can pray and plead with God to change either God's mind, or the mind of Church leadership, whenever it is needed. Which is what President Kimball did about something that always bothered him his entire life, and for having the compassion and courage to be willing to take on this issue. Despite, the weakness of men and directions that can lead to peril, he also has men who with prayer, fasting and courage, can and will steady the Ark, when it is needed. It is why I love them so, not because they are flawless, but for what they accomplish with the aid of heaven, despite their weakness. It I defies description, that despite Joseph's weaknesses, and a very short life, he still was chosen, and did so many incredible things, and founded a Faith that might have slipped into obscurity, but instead became an "ensign to the world". God bless Joseph and Hyrum, who, under the direction of Jesus Christ established a Faith that will be ready and relevant, until the coming of Jesus Christ.  

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

His comment was definitely racist, although he may not have meant it that way. I wonder how common the word "racist" was in his day? He believed what he was told most likely. He wasn't inspired IMO, in this area at all. 

The word "racist", does not mean someone who hates other races. It is the idea that one race is inferior, and lack the ability to become as others who deem themselves, superior. What I read in this comment suggest the belief, that given the opportunity that they can and will rise to be just as everyone else.  

[mnn727]

Everyone living in 1800's America was a racist to one degree or another. If you could discuss blacks with Abraham Lincoln, you'd see he was racist also compared to today's standards.

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The word "racist", does not mean someone who hates other races. It is the idea that one race is inferior, and lack the ability to become as others who deem themselves, superior. What I read in this comment suggest the belief, that given the opportunity that they can and will rise to be just as everyone else.  

Not necessarily that they think the other is inferior due to their race. That type of racism Joseph explicitly rejected. It's more the idea that you treat them differently. And in that Joseph Smith (and even most abolitionists) were clearly racist. I think the quote in question, while not phrased the way we'd be comfortable with, clearly assumes an equality between Africans and Europeans that was extremely unusual. Even those, like Abraham Lincoln, who fought against slavery didn't typically think Africans were equal. For Joseph to say any differences were just social was very, very progressive for the time.

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The word "racist", does not mean someone who hates other races. It is the idea that one race is inferior, and lack the ability to become as others who deem themselves, superior. What I read in this comment suggest the belief, that given the opportunity that they can and will rise to be just as everyone else.  

I believe all races are the same when they are born, not some that will rise to be just as everyone else. That reeks of racism to me, that mentality. ETA: Re-read your comment Pa Pa, I get what you're saying now. That is that if they weren't slaves they could rise to be just as everyone else. But when you really think about it, black slaves probably rose to be better than most in their slavery and were constantly rising to be able to withstand what they and their families, friends etc. were going through. They rose above the whites, because of that abuse, they had to rise above in order to live under that kind of horrible abuse. So in a huge sense, came out far above the whites. Whites, are far weaker when they use slaves the way they did. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

I think for his time he was not a racist.

[cinepro]

Wouldn't you need to define "racist" first?

As I understand it, a totally non-racist person would be one who doesn't believe in any meaningful distinction between "races".   There may be physical differences between groups of people, such as skin color, but that doesn't signify anything other than the amount of pigment in the skin.  Attributing any other meaning beyond that, for any reason, would indicate some degree of racism (however slight or noble.)

 

That may be an ideal, and an unrealistic ideal for past times and cultures, but I don't know if it is unrealistic for someone who claims to be getting his moral code from God.

 

Of course, it's also possible that God is racist, but that opens a whole nother can of worms.

[thesometimesaint]

While race has changed meanings over the years(Nations aren't really a race.). Racism is considered the idea that one race is intrinsically superior/inferior to another. I believe that God is not a racist, but as long as we depend on mortal fallible men to define what God says and does. We get ourselves into trouble.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation.

Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

To me it is clear that he is  speaking of those who were born as slaves, and not a racial comment.

Posting the whole quote matters in this one.  The rest of the comment makes it clear that he is not just talking about slaves.

• "Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant? […] Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216)

I don't see how that can be considered anything but racist using today's terms.
In his day, this was the general norm.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I believe all races are the same when they are born, not some that will rise to be just as everyone else. That reeks of racism to me, that mentality. 

I agree.  The color of skin should not be as if one has to achieve a certain thing to exist and to be.  We are all of the same God..what He wants is what He wants for all of us.  This has nothing to do with race..but with our circumstance in life and our own talents and accomplishments.  All of us together have something to contribute to a heaven that is blind to color..to race..and a part of a whole.

[Nevo]

Here's a pop quiz for you: Who said it? Joseph Smith or Brigham Young?
 

a) [Regarding African ancestry:] "It's nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh . . . We have one of the best Elders an African in Lowell–a barber . . . We don't care about the color."

b) "The fact is controvertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Him in servitude! . . . What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is 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 the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel."

__________________________________________

Answers

a) Brigham Young, Historian's Office General Church Minutes, March 26, 1847, Church History Library, CR 100 318, box 0001, folder 0052, images 27 and 28.
b) Joseph Smith, Messenger and Advocate, April 1836, http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/7236.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Nevo

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see how that can be considered anything but racist using today's terms.
In his day, this was the general norm.

I think you have to contextualize it a bit though. Note that what Joseph espouses is nearly identical to what Malcom X espoused and apparently for fairly similar reasons. Now I disagree with both and think full integration is necessary. However one should also recognize the unique situation in 1840. Probably the only way at that time to ensure blacks were socialized in a fashion fair with whites was to eliminate bigoted whites from the equation. That is, I think you have to look at his aims in this. Had there been more separation then most of the horrific treatment of blacks during reconstruction up through the civil rights era may have been prevented. That was because the civil war didn't ensure whites would treat blacks equally. Had blacks their own state with own representatives free of white influence I think many of the problems of American racism that persisted after the civil war likely would have ended much quicker. Although it's naive to assume that just having their own state would have prevented whites, particularly white southerners, from attempting to oppress that state.

Again this was far from the general norm at the time. Almost everyone including those opposed to slavery and pushing equal rights for blacks typically thought Africans were inferior. That's horrible and hard for us today to wrap our mind around. Again even extremely progressive whites held that view that Africans were inferior. For Joseph to say that any differences in behavior were purely attributable to socialization is extremely unusual for the era.

Edited September 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Here's a pop quiz for you: Who said it? Joseph Smith or Brigham Young?

b) Joseph Smith, Messenger and Advocate, April 1836, http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/7236.
 

The later of course was during the beginnings of the persecutions in Missouri which can't be neglected. Most historians assume this was his attempting to assuage the fears of his neighbors with a huge influx of abolitionists. It didn't work of course. The Mormons were still driven from county to county until the final blow up of the Missouri war and move to Nauvoo.

That doesn't mean he doesn't hold some responsibility for such statements. But I think they should be carefully contextualized. I believe in this case it was also ghost-written although I'd have to check to be sure. BTW - the version at the JSP is easier to read.

To be fair he does raise some dangerous myths such as the idea that blacks were apt to rape. Even if, judging by his later comments, he ascribes this to how they were treated by whites, it's still a pernicious myth even if widely believed at the time. Particularly considering how often the opposite was true. He also embraces the Biblical apologetic southerners were raising at the time of Ham and servitude.  I certainly find many other elements of the letter to be disturbing, even if written largely to placate the fearful neighbors of the Mormons.

The bigger question is how much this unsigned letter from 1836 represents his views in the 1840's. It's that I'd be much, much more careful with. It's possible to see the 1836 letter as him being disingenuous in order to reduce tensions in the slave state of Missouri where abolition was a major issue. Even if one does see it as reflecting Joseph's views, it's clear that by the 1840's they'd changed somewhat.

Edited September 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe all races are the same when they are born, not some that will rise to be just as everyone else. That reeks of racism to me, that mentality. ETA: Re-read your comment Pa Pa, I get what you're saying now. That is that if they weren't slaves they could rise to be just as everyone else. But when you really think about it, black slaves probably rose to be better than most in their slavery and were constantly rising to be able to withstand what they and their families, friends etc. were going through. They rose above the whites, because of that abuse, they had to rise above in order to live under that kind of horrible abuse. So in a huge sense, came out far above the whites. Whites, are far weaker when they use slaves the way they did. 

I know it is PC to say such things, but to declare that Black people "rose to be better", and that "they are far above whites" is just as much racism, for those who claim whites are above or rose above Blacks. It is no less insulting, no less a sin, and no less racist. No race, despite their circumstances is any worse or better than any other. Those who profess such ideas, fit in every way the tern racists. We are equal in hardship, equal in weakness, equal in God give ability, this is what Joseph was trying to say. We are equal in God's eyes, and any thought to the contrary, "commeth of evil", to quote the Apostle Paul. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not necessarily that they think the other is inferior due to their race. That type of racism Joseph explicitly rejected. It's more the idea that you treat them differently. And in that Joseph Smith (and even most abolitionists) were clearly racist. I think the quote in question, while not phrased the way we'd be comfortable with, clearly assumes an equality between Africans and Europeans that was extremely unusual. Even those, like Abraham Lincoln, who fought against slavery didn't typically think Africans were equal. For Joseph to say any differences were just social was very, very progressive for the time.

That is what I said, unless I am unable to read what I said. What is the "not necessarily" part with which you disagreed? Again, hatred is not racism, racism is the belief that one race is better than another. Treating people differently or hating others, if this were racism, then what does it mean to hate those of one's own race, or treat those of one's own race differently? Hatred and racism most always go hand in hand, but they are not the same.  

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

That is what I said, unless I am unable to read what I said. What is the "not necessarily" part with which you disagreed? Again, hatred is not racism, racism is the belief that one race is better than another. Treating people differently or hating others, if this were racism, then what does it mean to hate those of one's own race, or treat those of one's own race differently? Hatred and racism most always go hand in hand, but they are not the same.  

Then would you consider it accurate to call all the leaders of the Church and even the Church itself racist until the lifting of the ban in 1978?
Because regardless of levels of love or absence of hate, clearly everyone from Joseph Smith on down to 1978 believed in treating the races differently.
 

[Avatar4321]

The answer is no