Was Joseph Smith a racist?

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

Two things are worth noting: (1) in the New Testament, special care was taken not to call for the freeing of slaves.  Slavery was an ever present fact of life in the Roman Empire, and Christians were not allowed to challenge that fact. (2) Joseph as a strong 1844 U.S. Presidential candidate called for the freeing of all slaves in America -- through having the U.S. Govt buy them from their owners.  He did not want the Civil War which he had already predicted in 1832 (D&C 87).

[clarkgoble]

17 hours 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.  

I was disagreeing with the sentence "it is the idea that one race is inferior, and lack the ability to become as others who deem themselves, superior." It can be racist to simply treat them differently without necessarily believing in the least they are inferior in any way.  

Quote

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.  

The problem is that the word has several senses. Largely on the back of various academic trends the use of "hate other groups" or "think one should treat those of ones group better" have become less common in many groups. Now it's more making decisions that affect disempowered racial groups worse. The big problem is that this semantic usage tends to be divided between groups. So liberals tend to use this Foucault inspired use whereas conservatives tend to use intention based uses. This in turn plays into the culture wars that have become so aggravated the past couple of years since it's an argument over social norms. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Two things are worth noting: (1) in the New Testament, special care was taken not to call for the freeing of slaves.  Slavery was an ever present fact of life in the Roman Empire, and Christians were not allowed to challenge that fact. (2) Joseph as a strong 1844 U.S. Presidential candidate called for the freeing of all slaves in America -- through having the U.S. Govt buy them from their owners.  He did not want the Civil War which he had already predicted in 1832 (D&C 87).

I agree although I'm skeptical how serious he policy proposals were. The costs for buying all the slaves made it pretty much a non-starter for instance. Further the south would never have agreed. The question then becomes how ignorant Joseph was of these issues.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem is that the word has several senses. Largely on the back of various academic trends the use of "hate other groups" or "think one should treat those of ones group better" have become less common in many groups. Now it's more making decisions that affect disempowered racial groups worse. The big problem is that this semantic usage tends to be divided between groups. So liberals tend to use this Foucault inspired use whereas conservatives tend to use intention based uses. This in turn plays into the culture wars that have become so aggravated the past couple of years since it's an argument over social norms. 

I listed in bold print a word that is often used in the world of race relations. I grew up in the segregated South, where racism was not an academic issue, but a lived experience. Separate bathrooms, classrooms, churches, neighborhood and lives. It was degrading and ridiculous, yet played out daily in the lives of everyone. Much of America tosses around the word "racism", and think they truly know what it means, just how ugly it really is, and the debilitating effect it can have upon the soul. In fact it was so complete, so institutionalized, that those of another race, "African Americans", could not even stand and call someone a racist, without putting their very lives at risk. 

Having said all of this, once the South dealt with and rid themselves of the demons, of hate and violence, we moved on to a place where all live together in love and peace. It is true that there are some holdouts who still cannot love anyone, and who can only love "hate and racism", but they are a dying breed. Sadly one hurdle that we cannot seem to clear is the prophecy or statement made by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, "11:00 on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week". In fact the the churches declared cults or cult-like are the exceptions to the rule, who have Black and Whitle and other races worshipping together are Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. Also it is important to note that it is here in the South that demonstrations in the South rarely trun violent, because of our progress. Many in the North and in the West who think they have risen about such thoughts and feelings, find themselves at the center of most of the violence, while pointing to the South as the worst offenders. Having grown up as a Baptist, it is imports to note, that every Church of my childhood are still all white. One Sunday growing up, a Black man new to the area, came into our Church service and sat on the back row, had two Deacons, go back and very politely give the man an address to an all Black Church. It does not matter how polite, or gentle, it enraged my Mother who insisted, that we leave that day. This took place in the 60's, but it was no less anti-Christian, anti-love and anti-Holy Spirit. 

Today however, the reason that Church Services are for the "lion share" off the reason are segregated, is because (To quote a line from a great song by Bruce Hornsby), "That's just the way it is". When I bought my final home, we were looking for deals via foreclosures, we found a place named after a very good Black family, the name of a family of a very good friend of ours. So we were able to pay cash, and 90% of our neighbors are Black and members of this wonderful family. Two of which are now taking discussions from the missionaries. So to end this post, I thankfully have seen both sides of the ugly and unholy institution of racism, at least in my world. So to quote Dr. King on more time, "I have been to the mountaintop, and I have seen the promised land", and to paraphrase another part. "I (speaking of myself), "I may not get there with you, but we as a people will get to the promised land", I think that is a correct quote, but I am not sure. 

Respectfully,

Bill "Papa" Lee

Atlanta, Georgia

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

Is the "church and leaders misogynists for treating women differently than men?

No, and I don't consider them racist either.
But based on the current usage in society, the Church is sexist now and racist pre-1978.

So perspective matters.
But I still think it's safe to say that Brigham and his successors down to Kimball weren't necessarily any more racist than Joseph Smith.
I think the "blame Brigham" game gets old and isn't accurate.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

I have read the other posts.   But I want to point out that JS's actions show he was not racist.   

1)  One of the first missions (to which he sent his brother Samuel, if I recall correctly), was to the indigenous people of North America.  

2)  When Jane Manning James arrived in Nauvoo as a free black woman, she was unable to get a job.   JS took her into his home, and she worked for him.   That suggests he was trying to give the signal that others who had excluded her were not doing right by her.

3)  He asked her if she wanted to be sealed to him just weeks before his death and she was still thinking about it when he died.  (From how she described it, she thought it was just like the other dynastic type sealings that they were doing then, that Wilford Woodruff's  1870 revelation said was a misunderstanding of the sealing ordinance that should link each person to their individual ancestors instead of to someone they thought righteous.  (Later after years of asking, and she was sealed (by proxy) to JS, in a category they labelled as servant (after the revelation in 1978, she was also sealed to her husband). 

4)  JS hired other black people in skilled labor positions.   JS ordained (had them ordained) black people to the priesthood, and sent them on missions, where the taught white people as well as black people.   Elijah Abel served as bishop of a mostly white and fully integrated ward in Ohio (until BY come through on his way back from a mission and  told him he could only be bishop for the black part of the congregation thereafter).

(2-4 are described  with footnotes of resources in the "Standing on the Promises" trilogy.)

 

All this shows is what has already been said on this thread.
The definition of "racist" matters.

In the broadly used definition that racism is treating people differently based on race, then Joseph was as much a racist as Brigham.
In the much more narrow definition involving intentional dislike of a particular race then I don't think he was racist at all.  I'm not convinced Brigham was either under that definition.

So was Joseph racist?  Depends on your definition of racism.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Having said all of this, once the South dealt with and rid themselves of the demons, of hate and violence, we moved on to a place where all live together in love and peace.

Umm. Having also lived in the south I'd say the south is years if not decades away from having achieved that. Coming originally from Canada the level of racism in the south remains staggering to me. (Racism in all senses of the term)  Even though it's been several years since I lived there, I constantly see enough to make me extremely skeptical things have changed enough. I'm sure there are many people far less harsh in their views. But I'm extremely skeptical blacks are treated the same as whites in the south. I'm sure most of those who treat blacks differently think they aren't racist because they don't have conscious dislike of blacks the way their parents might have. I don't think that means they aren't racist.

Edited September 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree although I'm skeptical how serious he policy proposals were. The costs for buying all the slaves made it pretty much a non-starter for instance. Further the south would never have agreed. The question then becomes how ignorant Joseph was of these issues.

JS wanted to sell public lands to pay the slave owners. IMNTBHO it could have worked monetarily if the South had agreed. However I don't see them as having wanted to.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree although I'm skeptical how serious he policy proposals were. The costs for buying all the slaves made it pretty much a non-starter for instance. Further the south would never have agreed. The question then becomes how ignorant Joseph was of these issues.

Joseph was neither ignorant nor flippant.  He was a prophet of God giving a last chance to the slaveholders to act in righteousness.  Their failure to heed him sealed their own fate.  At least he made a proposal which would cost much less than the War which did come to end that problem.  Would that we had modern politicians with that sort of gumption today.  The proposal to buy all of the slaves could have been accommodated partly through tax incentives, through the sale of public lands (as sometimesaint points out), and through a shift to the sort of sharecropping which came in during Reconstruction anyhow.  Implementing such a program would naturally have taken time. Instead we had a war which killed more people per capita than any other war we have ever fought.  And, in its wake, we spent another century of de facto enslavement of Black people before any real change began.

Today we have the unholy specter of (1) antebelllum Harvard University having brought to bear its best scholarship to justify slavery and the inferiority of Black people, of (2) Jesuit George Washington Univ having sold hundreds of slaves when they needed money (they are now apologizing and offering some tuition free admission to the descendants of those slaves as a form of recompense), etc.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Having also lived in the south I'd say the south is years if not decades away from having achieved that. Coming originally from Canada the level of racism in the south remains staggering to me. (Racism in all senses of the term)  Even though it's been several years since I lived there, I constantly see enough to make me extremely skeptical things have changed enough. I'm sure there are many people far less harsh in their views. But I'm extremely skeptical blacks are treated the same as whites in the south. I'm sure most of those who treat blacks differently think they aren't racist because they don't have conscious dislike of blacks the way their parents might have. I don't think that means they aren't racist.

Other than four years in (what was then) West Germany, while in the Army, I have lived here for 60 years. I served in the Army for eight years, were I viewed the world as it could be, with everyone working together. I then served in Law Enforcement for the City of Atlanta for 23 years. But in the Army, Law Enforcement and life here in the South, I am accustomed to being a target. We are also accustomed to being painted with a very broad brush. When I was Chief over my department, I sought out employees that were African American, and other like minded people to work for me. Men and women who were willing and eager to work in the community. Also, an even broader brush that others love to paint all our parents as racist. But enough said, I am sure more painting needs to be done. What I am skeptical of is that others will continue to paint our Church with a broad brush to deflect attention away from their own bad acts, and the South to deflect from their own regional bad acts. Having debated this topic often, on a number of websites, I am a Mormon, Southerner, retired Police Officer and White. So I get it from all sides, every time I wade into the pool. I have a lifetime of experience of just how far we have come. 

[thesometimesaint]

33 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Other than four years in (what was then) West Germany, while in the Army, I have lived here for 60 years. I served in the Army for eight years, were I viewed the world as it could be, with everyone working together. I then served in Law Enforcement for the City of Atlanta for 23 years. But in the Army, Law Enforcement and life here in the South, I am accustomed to being a target. We are also accustomed to being painted with a very broad brush. When I was Chief over my department, I sought out employees that were African American, and other like minded people to work for me. Men and women who were willing and eager to work in the community. Also, an even broader brush that others love to paint all our parents as racist. But enough said, I am sure more painting needs to be done. What I am skeptical of is that others will continue to paint our Church with a broad brush to deflect attention away from their own bad acts, and the South to deflect from their own regional bad acts. Having debated this topic often, on a number of websites, I am a Mormon, Southerner, retired Police Officer and White. So I get it from all sides, every time I wade into the pool. I have a lifetime of experience of just how far we have come. 

I agree. Overall the South has made great progress in terms of race relations. Unfortunately the country at large seems to be going backwards. We've gone from the children of Fredrick Douglass to who is Fredrick Douglass in the matter of months.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I agree. Overall the South has made great progress in terms of race relations. Unfortunately the country at large seems to be going backwards. We've gone from the children of Fredrick Douglass to who is Fredrick Douglass in the matter of months.

Considering where they were within our lifetimes, they can make considerably progress and still be extremely far away from where they should be. I'm not sure our country has so much regressed - except perhaps in public discourse - so much as exposed what was always present but easy to overlook for those in different circles.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree although I'm skeptical how serious he policy proposals were. The costs for buying all the slaves made it pretty much a non-starter for instance. Further the south would never have agreed. The question then becomes how ignorant Joseph was of these issues.

If he won, it would have been a miracle.  If they managed one miracle, why not a second one?  Perhaps that was the reasoning?

I don't know if he thought himself a viable candidate or if he was just using his candidacy as a way to expand awareness of the Mormon community and possibly expand influence.  My belief is the latter, but he had accomplished miraculous things in the past, so .I can't rule out he was open minded about winning.  However, I think it is most likely he was using this suggestion as a way to open the discussion about what to do about slavery beyond the typical suggestions.  It would be both helpful to the US if they had been able to do so and it helped portray him as someone who was innovative in his thinking.

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree although I'm skeptical how serious he policy proposals were. The costs for buying all the slaves made it pretty much a non-starter for instance. 

Sounds like he was just ahead of his time as far as being a politician goes.

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sounds like he was just ahead of his time as far as being a politician goes.

The reality was that at times he had to learn to be a politician. I don't think he was particularly good at it and made many mistakes. That's not a knock on Joseph Smith. I find not being a good politician to be admirable in many ways in terms of character. Yet the reality is that politicians serve an important need.