Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Correct.  I have not claimed or suggested this, nor "acted" like it is so.  Imputing such things to me is utterly stupid.

My bad! I read your comments saying that an apology wasn’t needed since this all ended 45 years ago. 

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or maybe it wasn't of God, but the Church isn't into the notion of collective guilt.  Pres. Oaks' reference to the "connotations" of "apology" also has relevance.

I love Pres. Oaks, but he is not the end all/be all "final word" on apologies.  His thoughts have merit, but in the end they are opinion and I think they have been given more weight in this specific discussion (which has been going on for years and over multiple threads) than is warranted.

Also, I don't agree the notion of collective guilt applies at all to this topic.  Collective guilt is when you hold a group or organization accountable for the choices of one in the group.  It can also be when you hold the people in the group or organization accountable for the choices of one in the group.  Neither are applicable to this discussion.

We aren't talking about hold the members accountable for the choices of church leadership.  Neither are we talking about hold the church accountable for the choices of one or a few members. 

We are talking about holding the organization accountable for the choices of the organization.  No collective guilt involved.

Quote

I suspect the Brethren have sought guidance on this issue.

Maybe, maybe not.  It's impossible to tell either way.

Quote

 

If cannot definitively ascertain the origins of the priesthood ban, then neither of these options (apologizing for it or standing by it) would seem to be apt.

And I'm not persuaded of the utility of institutional sin/apology anyway.

 

If the church can't figure out if one of their previous doctrines was from God or not, then that's a kind of a big deal.  It's a much bigger problem then issues of apology.  But whether or not you personally see the benefit of an organization apologizing for harm done in the organization's name also isn't that relevant to the organization's moral duty on the issue.

Quote

What "cake" is there?  I think the Brethren would love to be able to say that the ban was not revelatory. 

The cake of not having to disavow doctrines testified of as true and from God by prophets and apostles for over a hundred years.  

I don't know if they were love to say that or not.  These were doctrines taught over the pulpit by prophets and apostles, doctrines that kept people from accessing saving ordinances, and doctrines that perpetuated the evils of racism (and the idea that God esteems one flesh above another based solely on the color of skin).  Admitting that prophets and apostles were completely and utterly wrong about things they testified were true has repercussions that would be really really hard for some members to deal with.  

Quote

 

I don't feel the least bit guilty that the priesthood is limited to men.  That's the way the Church and its leaders have set things.  I don't feel guilty even though I know some women feel injured or deprived about it.  I also don't feel guilty because I give the Brethren a rebuttable presumption or benefit of the doubt.  It is their job to sort these things out.  I don't feel guilty because I have no say in the matter, except to pray and ask the Lord to inspire and guide His servants.

In the main, I think the Brethren are attuned to these concerns.  I also think we ought to temper our expectations as to what the Lord reveals, and how, and when.

 

This is different than what we are talking about.  We aren't talking about doing something that we believe is condoned by God.  We are talking about how we should feel when we did something in the name of God that we later learn was actually condemned by Him, especially if we persuaded others to do it too.

 

[Malc]

Is "we won't do X, because our critics could use X to further malign us" considered to be a valid reason for not doing X?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Malc said:

Is "we won't do X, because our critics could use X to further malign us" considered to be a valid reason for not doing X?

If it was we certainly would never have embraced polygamy.

[Malc]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I actually agree, but the fact that we don't know the origin of the ban is a little suspect in and of itself.

I mean, if it was revelation, then there should be a record of that revelation (if not an account of the revelation itself then at least an account that one was received).  But we have no record of any revelation anywhere.  Which in my mind means that there's more evidence in support of an apology on the issue than evidence to support not apologizing.

Sorry if this sounds snarky - it's not intended to be. I've tried to think of various ways to word a direct question, and they all come out sounding much the same way. 

Did you write para 2 (especially the bit in parentheses) to acknowledge that we do not have the 1978 revelation that rescinded the ban, only an announcement that such a revelation had been received?

Do you think that it's significant that we were asked, in General Conference, to sustain the announcement, and not the words of the revelation?

Or, if I have somehow missed the publication of the actual revelation, I'd be happy if you - or someone else - could point me to it.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Malc said:

Sorry if this sounds snarky - it's not intended to be. I've tried to think of various ways to word a direct question, and they all come out sounding much the same way. 

Did you write para 2 (especially the bit in parentheses) to acknowledge that we do not have the 1978 revelation that rescinded the ban, only an announcement that such a revelation had been received?

Do you think that it's significant that we were asked, in General Conference, to sustain the announcement, and not the words of the revelation?

Or, if I have somehow missed the publication of the actual revelation, I'd be happy if you - or someone else - could point me to it.

Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't referring to the revelation to rescind the ban.  I was referring to the revelation to stop ordaining black men.  JS ordained black men and BY ended the practice.  It's odd that we can't find historical evidence of God anywhere in BY's decision, even though the church ran with it (and extrapolated other doctrines out of it), for over a hundred years. 

Especially considering we required a revelation to end a ban that has no evidence of revelation in the starting of it.

I don't think we necessarily need the revelation specifically (for the beginning of it or the end); even just the prophet claiming to have had a revelation is enough (in my opinion) in a church where we sustain the prophet as having the authority and ability to get direction from God for the church.  We get that with Pres. Kimball when the ban was liftend but we don't have it when it comes to inception of the priesthood ban. 

It just shows up one day and the church doesn't look back until 1978.

I think the only thing that we have about the end of the ban is what is in Official Declaration #2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

Edited June 18, 2024 by bluebell

[Senator]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

If the church can't figure out if one of their previous doctrines was from God or not, then that's a kind of a big deal.  It's a much bigger problem then issues of apology. 

 

I award you the "Most poignant statement of the whole thread" 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Senator said:

I award you the "Most poignant statement of the whole thread" 

For the record, I think they could figure it out (or maybe already have) but that it's a lose/lose situation for them go further than they've currently gone. 

If they say it wasn't of God, then that's a can of worms (in my opinion, not an insurmountable can of worms by any means, but it likely would be for some), and if they say it was, it's just a different can of worms.  

 

[rpn]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide references?

Sorry.  I've acquired this info over years of reading everything published about Blacks and the Priesthood, the history of Black members,  the ban and the investigations, Spencer W. Kimball's history, and retained it because of how important the issue is.

[Malc]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't referring to the revelation to rescind the ban.  I was referring to the revelation to stop ordaining black men.  JS ordained black men and BY ended the practice.  It's odd that we can't find historical evidence of God anywhere in BY's decision, even though the church ran with it (and extrapolated other doctrines out of it), for over a hundred years. 

Especially considering we required a revelation to end a ban that has no evidence of revelation in the starting of it.

I don't think we necessarily need the revelation specifically (for the beginning of it or the end); even just the prophet claiming to have had a revelation is enough (in my opinion) in a church where we sustain the prophet as having the authority and ability to get direction from God for the church.  We get that with Pres. Kimball when the ban was liftend but we don't have it when it comes to inception of the priesthood ban. 

It just shows up one day and the church doesn't look back until 1978.

I think the only thing that we have about the end of the ban is what is in Official Declaration #2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

Ahh - even my best attempt fell short  

Yes - I understood that you were talking about the inception of the ban. I was wondering if your reference to "(if not an account of the revelation itself then at least an account that one was received)" was also covering the fact that AFAIK we don't have the words of the 1978 revelation, and that OD2 is just an announcement that a revelation had been received. I would have hoped for more - e.g., what did God actually say.

ETA: so you didn't confuse me at all - I just bungled my response

Edited June 18, 2024 by Malc

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Malc said:

Ahh - even my best attempt fell short  

Yes - I understood that you were talking about the inception of the ban. I was wondering if your reference to "(if not an account of the revelation itself then at least an account that one was received)" was also covering the fact that AFAIK we don't have the words of the 1978 revelation, and that OD2 is just an announcement that a revelation had been received. I would have hoped for more - e.g., what did God actually say.

ETA: so you didn't confuse me at all - I just bungled my response

Ah, got it.

I don't personally believe the revelation was God speaking words to the prophet but it could have been.  If it was then yes, that would be really awesome to know!

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

In my experience, the Church is overwhelmingly good and decent in its dealings with its members, and with those not of our faith.

Wonderful.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I'm not suggesting that you absolutely enjoy skinning puppies for profit.  

You're adorable. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Please show me conduct by the institutional church in, say, the last quarter century that would indicate a lack of sincerity regarding its desire to overcome and condemn racism, both in and out of the Church.

Take your time.  I'll wait.

Please show me evidence of acknowledgement that the church, in say the last quarter century, apologized for rogue behavior that led to the ban with the admission that wrong doing was done all along.

Take your time. I'll wait.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Me (referencing the putative apology) : "My point is that I think some of the people calling for an apology will 'deem it insufficient.'"

You (referencing the putative apology) : "After all this time? Really?"

I could not ask for a more clear demonstration of my point.

Apologies. I suppose it would be more appropriate for those who have done wrong to determine when and if an apology is ever worth giving.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You continue to prove my point.  

The narcissist and the institution are the same entity who will not humble themselves enough to apologize. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on the distinction here?

The Borg, a hive mind, are a collective. The church is a top-down authoritarian theocracy. I do not use authoritarian as a pejorative. The institutional church, despite the handbook, policies, and doctrines, and the membership are not of a single collective mind. And that is absolutely wonderful.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then on whom is the guilt being ascribed?  The "institution"?  

Collective guilt, in other words?

No. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Who does owe an apology, then?

How about the FP and Q12 simply apologize for the wrongdoing of past leadership and simply state that past leadership acted without evidence of revelation or inspiration?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "sin" being the ban that was instituted in 1852 by people now long dead?  And which was ended nearly a century ago in 1978?

No. The sin being the ban that was instituted in 1852 that lasted nearly a century (84 years) and which was ended not even half a century ago (46 years).

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I "perpetuate" a "sin" I never participated in?  Collective guilt, then.  That's your thing?

If your goal is to provide an apologetic argument in defense of that which is indefensible then you have your own guilt to deal with and not the guilt of the ignoramuses who thought a priesthood ban was somehow a good idea.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Please show me evidence of acknowledgement that the church, in say the last quarter century, apologized for rogue behavior that led to the ban with the admission that wrong doing was done all along.

Take your time. I'll wait.

Dodge.

27 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Apologies. I suppose it would be more appropriate for those who have done wrong to determine when and if an apology is ever worth giving.

"{T}hose who have done wrong" are . . . whom?  

Are you into collective guilt or not?  Brigham Young instituted the ban in 1852, and he died in 1877,.  Assuming he did so without revelatory authorization, he "done wrong."  Some of his successors perpetuated the wrong through offensive speculation and conjecture.  The process of undoing the ban started after World War II.  Pres. McKay appears to have given the matter a lot of thought and effort, but the ban was not rescinded - via revelation - until 1978.

The acting President of Q12, Pres. Holland, was called as an apostle in 1994.  He played no role in the priesthood ban or its end.

Presidents Nelson, Oaks and Eyring became apostles in 1984, 1984 and 1995, respectively.  None of them were involved in the priesthood ban or its end.

How have these men "done wrong"? 

27 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

How about the FP and Q12 simply apologize for the wrongdoing of past leadership and simply state that past leadership acted without evidence of revelation or inspiration?

Well, I'm open to it.

27 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

If your goal is to provide an apologetic argument in defense of that which is indefensible then you have your own guilt to deal with and not the guilt of the ignoramuses who thought a priesthood ban was somehow a good idea.

Insults, presentism and midreading.

Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Something i find interesting is that the aborigines of Australia were given the priesthood 14 years prior to the official ban

https://askgramps.org/were-australian-aborigines-kept-from-priesthood-like-blacks/

I was talking to a man the other day who was a missionary in Australia when this came out in 1964. I wonder what the reasons for them getting the priesthood but not African-Americans

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

No. The sin being the ban that was instituted in 1852 that lasted nearly a century (84 years) and which was ended not even half a century ago (46 years).

Not to mention the lack of correction of hateful harmful doctrines for decades post ban. McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine was available in print until 2010 and included the “folklore” doctrine (see caste systems). I learned the doctrine at BYU from Bruce’s son circa 2000. Bott was teaching it until 2014? All of this occurred on Russell Nelson’s watch as a prophet seer and revelator. This was pervasive. The idea that only collective guilt applies to Russell Nelson is very foreign to me. It definitely flies in the face of every lesson on repentance I learned at church.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Something i find interesting is that the aborigines of Australia were given the priesthood 14 years prior to the official ban

https://askgramps.org/were-australian-aborigines-kept-from-priesthood-like-blacks/

I was talking to a man the other day who was a missionary in Australia when this came out in 1964. I wonder what the reasons for them getting the priesthood but not African-Americans

As I recall (from "DOM and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," I think), President McKay was able to pare back the ban by defining it by lineage rather than skin color. Thus, dark skinned people who were not of African descent were removed from the purview of the ban. He wanted to do away with the ban, but was content to chip away at it administratively if no new revelation was forthcoming.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It just shows up one day and the church doesn't look back until 1978

It (if one assumes holding meetings questioning what was going on is looking back) actually looked back several times given there were quite a few investigations into it until 1908 when the ban became set in stone as doctrinal by JFS imo even though only 8 years previous Pres Lorenzo Snow expressed doubts about the ban and Abel’s son was even allowed to be ordained.

I don’t want to dig out Reeves or was it Stevenson’s book that documents the number of times this issue came up for examination in the 1800’s as I am too lazy tonight to give dates and times, etc.

I really, really, really want to know what was going on in Joseph F Smith’s mind between 1895 when he was definite that JS gave the Priesthood to Elijah Abel, was one of his strongest advocates iirc and 1908 where he announces JS made Abel’s ordination null and void even though JFS had Abel’s ordination certificate supporting the previous position (maybe someone convinced him it was a forgery?).

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

As I recall (from "DOM and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," I think), President McKay was able to pare back the ban by defining it by lineage rather than skin color. Thus, dark skinned people who were not of African descent were removed from the purview of the ban. He wanted to do away with the ban, but was content to chip away at it administratively if no new revelation was forthcoming.

Quote

Melanesian “Blacks” are Given Priesthood
Under the direction of David O. McKay, Melanesian blacks are defined as from a different linage and not under the priesthood ban. The first Figians receive the priesthood in 1958 while the Negritos of the Philippines were given it earlier. (Armand Mauss, Neither White nor Black, Signature Books, pg. 152)

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

Sorry.  I've acquired this info over years of reading everything published about Blacks and the Priesthood, the history of Black members,  the ban and the investigations, Spencer W. Kimball's history, and retained it because of how important the issue is.

Quote

Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin Claim Joseph Smith Instituted the Priesthood Ban
Smoot, who owned two slaves, and Coltrin claim that Joseph Smith instituted the ban in the 1830s and dropped Abel from the priesthood. (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, p. 170, Special Collections, BYU).Coltrin is working from an old memory and makes several factual errors. Joseph F. Smith provides the two certificates indicating Abel’s status as a Seventy, which contradict Coltrin’s claims, as does Abel’s patriarchal blessing, which is read aloud at the meeting. Joseph F. Smith says he thinks Brother Coltrin’s memory is incorrect. One interesting note that may be relevant if accurate: Both Coltrin and Smoot claim to have asked Joseph Smith what to do with the “Negroes in the Southern States.” “[The Prophet] said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, but not to confer the priesthood upon them.” (Above sources as quoted in Neither White nor Black,Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, pg. 60.)

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history

Quote

1879, Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, pg. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had “masters”. This affidavit says that Smoot, “W.W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them” (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

But Coltrin says the ban was to be universally applied to all blacks. In L. John Nuttal’s Journal (pages 290-293) we find, “Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met. Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.” According to Coltrin, “…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.'” Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that “the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood.” President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy “was allowed to remain”. The other element that makes Coltrin’s story suspect is the claim that Joseph didn’t know Abel was black. Anyone who has looked at a picture of Abel has easily identified him as a black man.

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/quotes#smoot

https://bhroberts.org/records/pWylvc-093XFm/zebedee_coltrin_and_abraham_smoot_defend_priesthood_ban

The bolded part is what I consider evidence that Coltrin lied, whether to those around him or to himself by manufacturing memories more appealing to himself than what the documents show.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Also:

Quote

John Taylor recounted a story he had remembered, in which Coltrin had at one time remarked that Black people should not have the priesthood, to which Smith had responded with the account of the Apostle Peter's vision in Acts 10, in which he was commanded by God to "not call any man common or unclean" and to teach the Gentiles despite being a Jew himself, implying that Black men should have the priesthood.[37]: 97  However, Coltrin denied that this conversation had ever taken place. The recorded minutes of the meeting do not make it clear where Taylor originally heard the story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_temple_and_priesthood_policies_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#:~:text=John Taylor recounted a story,unclean" and to teach the

[Malc]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

As I recall (from "DOM and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," I think), President McKay was able to pare back the ban by defining it by lineage rather than skin color. Thus, dark skinned people who were not of African descent were removed from the purview of the ban. He wanted to do away with the ban, but was content to chip away at it administratively if no new revelation was forthcoming.

Do you think it matters that there is good scientific evidence (which some dispute, of course) that homo sapiens are all of African descent? Or did people in effect remove themselves from the curse by spreading out from Africa, so that only those who remained till x BCE retained it?

[LoudmouthMormon]

Glad to see @Calm citing and quoting actual black folks.  

 

Edited June 19, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

If it was we certainly would never have embraced polygamy.

Plus we did the opposite when it came to Native Americans.  
 

Given the greater contact we had with them at that time (and therefore the more in the awareness likely of the American public), it doesn’t make sense to me to say God or our leaders were somehow protecting the Church from destruction by allowing some offense of the general society but not too much with the Ban being allowed to continue as I have heard some rationalize its existence when both polygamy and our view of Native Americans were so atypical.  Adding acceptance of blacks at least on the same level of Native Americans doesn’t seem like it would be the straw that would break any restraint of the American public or government.

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-3-2016/discussing-difficult-topics-race-priesthood

”Wayment: You’ve also looked at whiteness in Mormon scripture, is that right?

Reeve: Yes, I mean the Book of Mormon obviously has passages that are charged with race and can certainly be read in very racist ways, and Mormons have read them in those kinds of ways. I think, perhaps, Mormons sometimes struggle to know exactly what is going on there. The narrative of the Book of Mormon especially revolves around a notion of the fallen Lamanites being redeemed into white and delightsome people, and obviously nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint leaders latched onto that and believed that their mission was to help redeem Native Americans, whom they understood as racially different from Euro-American Latter-day Saints. It was a mission for Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century to redeem Native Americans from their fallen status and make them “white and delightsome.”

Wayment: So, an interesting thing you said—and I hadn’t planned to ask this—Mormons, at the time that they were developing this narrative of redeeming Native Americans, were also viewed as ethnically not white enough, or racially not white enough. Is that accurate?

Reeve: That is accurate. That’s really the point of the book: that Mormons were seen as not white enough; outsiders were never quite sure how to categorize Mormons. Nearly every marginalized group in nineteenth-century America was used as a comparison with the Mormons. There was a narrative of guilt by association: Mormons were missionaries amongst Native Americans, so outsiders concluded that Mormons were conspiring with Native Americans to wipe out true, white Americans.

Wayment: Like the events that took place in Missouri, or later in the Nauvoo period?

Reeve: Yes, both. Every time the Mormons were driven from their homes—so I’m talking about the expulsions from Jackson County and from Clay County, from the state of Missouri altogether, the state of Illinois altogether, or even the Utah war—there was a corresponding accusation of Mormon-Indian conspiracy. It happened every time. It was one of the rationalizations used to justify a Mormon expulsion. It was in the letters piling up on Governor Boggs’s desk before he issued the extermination order. The accusations took three key forms: Outsiders suggested that Mormons were conspiring with Indians to wipe out white Americans. They were intermarrying amongst them, and sometimes the argument was that the Mormons had become more savage than the “savages.” Outsiders also said things like, “White people really shouldn’t act this way”; “Mormons are not performing whiteness”; “they’re not true Anglo-Saxons”; “they’re more like Indians than they are like true, white Americans.”

Wayment: So, in a sense, there was this “othering” pressure, and Mormons now were other and Native Americans were other, so was it easy to say that they were both such different categories; they were conspiring against the United States. Is that an OK way to say it?

Reeve: Yes, I think that’s right. I think that this racialization process was the way in which outsiders justified discriminatory policies against the Mormons. How did you justify an extermination order against a group of people who looked like you? One way in which you did so was to suggest that in fact they weren’t like you, they were more like marginalized groups that nineteenth-century Americans felt perfectly justifiable in exterminating or expelling—Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, immigrants. Mormons were conflated with all of those different groups and it is one way in which the nation justified discriminatory policies against them.

Wayment: So, isn’t it true that the Book of Mormon works in a different direction? It’s kind of recognizing an “other,” a different race, and trying to redeem that? Whereas the American experience, what you were saying, is trying to identify an “other” so that we can push it to the periphery, maybe exclude it. Is that correct?

Reeve: I think that is correct. Mormons in the nineteenth century read the Book of Mormon narrative and saw in themselves the need to become agents of redemption for Native Americans. From a twenty-first-century perspective, this was paternalistic and animated by colonialism, but nonetheless, the notion is that Mormons saw themselves as agents of uplift. They used racialized language in the way in which that uplift played out, but they saw their mission as helping to redeem the fallen decedents of ancient Israel. And Mormonism was born into a racial context in which President Andrew Jackson had signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, the same year Mormonism was founded. Andrew Jackson had become convinced that Native Americans were not merely culturally different, but racially different, and in fact intermixing with white Americans had been a disaster. So the best thing to do was to remove them from their homes east of the Mississippi to an Indian country west of the Mississippi River. Mormons came along and suggested that they had a book that was reportedly a history of this group of people, and that Indians were in fact fallen descendants of ancient Israel and that they had a divine role in the ushering in of Christ’s return. The Mormon view of who Indians were shines in the face of the way in which Protestant, white America viewed Native Americans at the same time.

Wayment: So, it was almost countercultural, maybe even subversive to the American agenda at that time?

Reeve: Yes, that is one accusation absolutely leveled against Mormons. One of the themes that I trace is the way in which Protestant, white America made these arguments, these accusations against the Mormons. I also then look at the ways in which outsiders looked to the Native American context as a solution to the Mormon problem. So the Indian solution would be the solution to the Mormon problem; there was actually a reservation proposed for Mormons.

Wayment: I didn’t know that. Where was that located?

Reeve: After Joseph Smith’s murder in Illinois, there was a low-level official in Illinois who actually made a formal proposal that a Mormon reserve be created. He was explicit in saying that it was borrowed from this Native American, Indian reservation context. His proposal was to give the Mormons twenty-four square miles of land where only Mormons could settle, and there would be an agent appointed to preside. He borrowed from the reservation process in terms of the administrative structure. He proposed this to Mormons in Illinois, who responded by saying, “Well, it’s worth exploring,” because they really were looking for a new place to go by that point. Mormons were not necessarily opposed to the plan and even argued that twenty-four square miles was not enough land. The proposal did not receive much traction and died without coming to fruition.”

My bold…

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Malc said:

Do you think it matters that there is good scientific evidence (which some dispute, of course) that homo sapiens are all of African descent? Or did people in effect remove themselves from the curse by spreading out from Africa, so that only those who remained till x BCE retained it?

This is what I want to know.  Given what we now know of populations movement and the concept of Most Recent Common Ancestor, if black Africans and their descendants are the children of Cain because he is their ancestor, then so are whites, etc.

Back in DOM’s time this was not understood, at least not widely (I can’t remember when I first heard the all living of European descent are descendants of Charlemagne, I doubt before the 80s).  I don’t believe his reasoning would have been accepted unless lineage was given a narrow definition, such as what is in a patriarchal blessing…but I haven’t heard an explanation for lineage that is logical in my view, since we can be adopted into Ephraim.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh.

Yes oh.  I could not care less whether you believe me or not.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Remorse by whom?  For what?  

Once again you are being obtuse. A leader of an institution can speak to the past transgressions of the organization it leads.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I think for some of the people calling for an apology, nothing the Church could say or do would matter.  They would just move the goalposts.  Hence my comments about "March of Dimes Syndrome," "Mission Creep" and "Spencer's Law."

So what?  Do you base what you choose to da based on what "some people" would

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who regularly goes to a message board to profane a religious group to its adherents' faces.

More evidence of your thin skin.  This is a discussion board. I thought those who may have valid criticisms of the church were welcome to participate. And oh my what hyperboles.  Regularly profane? 🙄

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

To a guy who regularly shows up on that message board and interacts with the first guy.

You provide much that is easy and interesting to interact with.  But yea, you seem to have  a persecution complex and pretty thin skin in that regards.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, he could.

And in some quarters, it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

So what?

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

And in other quarters, it would be a staging area for the next phase, likely involving same-sex marriage or female ordination.  Hence my comments about bad faith, pretext, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I doubt it.  But who cares if some people might advocate for other such things? What does it matter? 

Also, I reject the premise that those interested and involved in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot advocate for changes or other things. Just because you or the church leaders say activism is inappropriate does not make it so. There is nothing special about the church that makes it exempt.  Of course the church has the power to discipline and impact a member's church membership if the leaders deem the activism inappropriate.