Katzpur's Take on Racism in the LDS Church

[Katzpur]

I have wanted to start a thread on this topic for just about as long as I can remember. The only reason I haven’t is that there is so much information to cover and it’s only when someone starts a “Mormons Are Racists” thread that my desire to delve into the subject in depth really kicks in. Since this has recently happened again, I figured that now would be as good a time as any for me to devote the time necessary to do the subject justice.

I would like to direct comments to three groups of people before beginning to discuss the topic itself.

• To my fellow Latter-day Saints: If you don’t agree with my point of view, please don’t hesitate to say so. I value your comments and recognize that they are as legitimate as mine. On the other hand, if you disagree, I would very much appreciate your controlling the urge to tell me that I’m not as good a Mormon as you are, that I am trying to destroy the Church or that, regardless of what evidence I may present to the contrary, our Prophets do not make mistakes.

• To all you non-Mormon readers: The title of this thread ought to be sufficient to make it clear that the views I’m going to express are my own. The forum on which I posted it should imply that I expect and want to see it debated. This topic has always been a very important one to me. I am so grateful that the ban was finally lifted. I believe it’s now time to move forward and stop dwelling on the past. On the other hand, moving forward doesn’t mean pretending the past didn’t happen. Please feel free to disagree with anything I have to say, but please keep it civil. I don’t know about the other LDS posters, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to rude or sarcastic posts.

• To the staff: This is another one of those threads that will likely become heated rather quickly. I would like to ask that you keep a close eye on it. I intentionally put it in a debate forum because I genuinely want people to be able to express their opinions on it, regardless of what those opinions might be. I am hoping so much that, in addition to this being a debate, it will also be an educational tool for those who have wondered about the charge of racism in the LDS Church. I would like to ask that you please do not allow this thread to become one filled with hateful rhetoric and personal insults.

 

[Katzpur]

Most threads on what people perceive to be racism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begin by saying something like, “Mormons are racists. Racism is at the core of their theology and is taught throughout their sacred text, The Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that God favors light-skinned people over dark-skinned people and will change a person’s skin color to reflect how He values him. Until very recently, Black men were not even allowed to be priests in the Mormon Church and even today, there are no Blacks in the LDS hierarchy.” (The sentiment, however, is seldom expressed as civilly as in the example I just gave.)

I personally see the statement in red text as having very little to do with the statement in blue text. To begin with, the Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Blacks and the priesthood. It concerns a smattering of passages in the Book of Mormon such as this one from 2 Nephi 5:21:

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

This “skin of blackness” was clearly never intended to be taken literally, as it describing the skins of people who were already relatively dark. All of the people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon (i.e. the Nephites and the Lamanites) were from the Middle East. We believe that some of the American Indians are descended from the group of people known in the Book of Mormon as the Lamanites. These are the people upon whom the Lord caused a “skin of blackness” to come. But just how black is their skin? I don’t know anyone who would confuse an American Indian with an African American. It’s not as if the Book of Mormon people were of Scandinavian descent, and God “cursed” them by making them appear to have come from Zimbabwe! The Book of Mormon states that "it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites, and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." What good would it do for God to change the skin of a Jordanian man so that he would be mistaken as being from Ecuador? If that's not completely illogical, I don't know what is.

On to the other issue (Blacks and the priesthood)… It is true that for a fairly lengthy period of time in the Church’s history, Black men were forbidden to hold the priesthood. Because we have a lay priesthood, this was considerably more noticeable than it would have been otherwise. In the earliest days of the Church, Blacks did hold the priesthood. By most accounts, Joseph Smith (who was remarkably color blind for an American man in the early 1800s) personally ordained at least one Black man, not only giving him the priesthood but calling him to be a Seventy, a position of leadership in the Church. It was not until Brigham Young was President of the Church that the restriction was put into effect. The United States was, at this period of its history, steeped in racism. That, of course, doesn’t make it right, but it does explain how the policy of denying the priesthood to Blacks may have originated. Should a prophet of God have been above that? We’d like to think so. Brigham Young was indisputably a great man, a great leader, a great colonizer and a great prophet. He was, nevertheless, a product of his culture. Finally, he was not and never claimed to be infallible. You can probably tell where I’m going with this. I don’t believe there is any evidence whatsoever that God ever told any of our prophets that some people were unworthy to hold the priesthood because of the color of their skins or their lineage. Some will disagree with me, and that’s their prerogative. I believe I can make a pretty good case for my point of view, though.

 

[rojse]

I must say that this is far more interesting and far more informative than another thread of a similar topic that was only created to bash Mormons. Good work, Katzpur.

 

[Katzpur]

I must say that this is far more interesting and far more informative than another thread of a similar topic that was only created to bash Mormons. Good work, Katzpur.

Thank you! I sincerely hope a few people will find this thread. I would like nothing more than to get to the bottom of this issue and to do so via a mature discussion on the topic.

 

[Apex]

Ill try and read more tomorrow but wanted to post this link for reference,
Genesis Group

 

[Dunemeister]

This “skin of blackness” was clearly never intended to be taken literally, as it describing the skins of people who were already relatively dark.

I wonder what textual basis there is for saying that "skin of blackness" doesn't refer to darker skin. It's not necessary for the referent to be a contrast between Scandinavian white and Abyssinian black. Given the cultural prominence of racism in ninteeth century America, why not assume that the text is talking about just that: black skin?

Admittedly, where you land on this debate may probably hinge at least somewhat on your theory about the provenance of the Book of Mormon. If you think it was written on golden plates centuries ago and later discovered by Smith, then there's no need to worry about American racism finding its way into the text. OTOH, if you believe that Smith more or less made it up (or whatever), the culture current of the day becomes more important. Having admitted that, however, there's still a problem if you assume the text was written by angels centuries ago on golden plates. The text does talk of skin. So my original question is still relevant. What does it mean when it talks of skin? Is there any textual reason to understand it as figurative? If it's figurative, why would the skin, rather than the soul (or whatever) be called "dark" to denote evil or cursing as in almost every other religious tradition?

Trying to evade the question by appeal to what we consider practial doesn't help, either. It doesn't really matter what "good" it would do for God to change a person's skin color. The point of the text, as far as I understand it, is that God cursed some people to be dark(er) skinned as a sign of their rebellion in a previous existence, and blessed others with white(r) skin for their fidelity. So I go back to my original question yet again. What textual reason is there to think that the referent of these phrases isn't honest-to-goodness black skin and white skin?

Almost as an aside, I should point out that, given the nature of authority in the CoJCoLDS, it doesn't really matter whether their holy books embody, or worse, sanction racism. Or so it seems to me. The church seems to put more stock in current prophetic revelation than anything codified. To an insider, that would look like dynamic flexibility and a sign of God's active presence. To an outsider, it may appear different. But both sides should agree that the emphasis on current revelation makes debates about what holy books might mean a little less urgent than it would for, say, historical Christian denominations (that is, those Christian denominations that self-consciously see themselves as in continuity with the church through the centuries as opposed to a restoration of the church). So what really matters from a doctrinal point of view is what current prophets say about race, is it not? Katz, please correct me if I've misunderstood all this.

 

[Katzpur]

I wonder what textual basis there is for saying that "skin of blackness" doesn't refer to darker skin. It's not necessary for the referent to be a contrast between Scandinavian white and Abyssinian black. Given the cultural prominence of racism in ninteeth century America, why not assume that the text is talking about just that: black skin?

Well, for starters, none of the people we believe to be the descendants of the people upon whom God put a "skin of blackness" are "Black"? When people today speak of a Black skin, they are describing a skin tone you have referred to as Abyssinian Black. The Nephites and the Lamanites all had what the average American today would refer to as a dark skin, and neither group had what would be referred to as a black skin. My pont was that it's hardly possible to distinquish between the degree of darkness of a Middle Easterner and a South American Indian?

Admittedly, where you land on this debate may probably hinge at least somewhat on your theory about the provenance of the Book of Mormon. If you think it was written on golden plates centuries ago and later discovered by Smith, then there's no need to worry about American racism finding its way into the text. OTOH, if you believe that Smith more or less made it up (or whatever), the culture current of the day becomes more important. Having admitted that, however, there's still a problem if you assume the text was written by angels centuries ago on golden plates.

I see what you mean, but from the beginning, one of the primary "target groups" of the Book of Mormon was the American Indians. Today, the Hispanic people are the fastest growing group of converts in the Church, although this was initially not the case. Had Joseph Smith actually written (as opposed to translated) the book, why would he have gone out of his way to insult the people he was trying to reach by describing them in unfavorable terms?

The text does talk of skin. So my original question is still relevant. What does it mean when it talks of skin? Is there any textual reason to understand it as figurative? If it's figurative, why would the skin, rather than the soul (or whatever) be called "dark" to denote evil or cursing as in almost every other religious tradition?

There is a similar passage in the Bible. I'll have to do some research to find it for you and I'm afraid it's going to have to wait until tomorrow.

Trying to evade the question by appeal to what we consider practial doesn't help, either. It doesn't really matter what "good" it would do for God to change a person's skin color.

That wasn't my point. My point was that there never really was any difference in the actual skin color of the Nephites and the Lamanites (from whom we believe some of the Meso-american people today to be descended). They all had a dark skin.

Almost as an aside, I should point out that, given the nature of authority in the CoJCoLDS, it doesn't really matter whether their holy books embody, or worse, sanction racism. Or so it seems to me. The church seems to put more stock in current prophetic revelation than anything codified. To an insider, that would look like dynamic flexibility and a sign of God's active presence. To an outsider, it may appear different. But both sides should agree that the emphasis on current revelation makes debates about what holy books might mean a little less urgent than it would for, say, historical Christian denominations (that is, those Christian denominations that self-consciously see themselves as in continuity with the church through the centuries as opposed to a restoration of the church). So what really matters from a doctrinal point of view is what current prophets say about race, is it not? Katz, please correct me if I've misunderstood all this.

I would agree that we value interpretation and understanding provided us by living prophets, even if this interpretation and understanding appears to contradict what previous prophets have said. God gives us knowledge and direction line upon line, precept upon precept. When he reveals new information, it is logical that it would take precedence over older information. Still, we believe the Book of Mormon to be the words of prophets living in the ancient Americas. We believe it to be a history of an ancient people and of God's dealings with them, so what the book says obviously can't be ignored. It can only be interpreted to the degree that God responds to our requests for understanding.

 

[Dunemeister]

My pont was that it's hardly possible to distinquish between the degree of darkness of a Middle Easterner and a South American Indian?

I'll grant you the history for the sake of argument. The question then becomes why focus on the color of the skin? When the bible uses "white" and "black" to describe purity and evil, it never makes reference to skin or in any way implies anything about race or racial features. Here, though, in the Book of Mormon, it specifically mentions skin. Why? Of what symbolic significance is the skin? And what features of the text demand a symbolic or figurative reading of dark or white skin?

I see what you mean, but from the beginning, one of the primary "target groups" of the Book of Mormon was the American Indians. Today, the Hispanic people are the fastest growing group of converts in the Church, although this was initially not the case. Had Joseph Smith actually written (as opposed to translated) the book, why would he have gone out of his way to insult the people he was trying to reach by describing them in unfavorable terms?

Perhaps the actual target audience was white Americans in the ninteenth century? This goes to our different theories about the provenance of the book.

There is a similar passage in the Bible. I'll have to do some research to find it for you and I'm afraid it's going to have to wait until tomorrow.

Looking forward to it.

 

[rojse]

Perhaps the actual target audience was white Americans in the ninteenth century? This goes to our different theories about the provenance of the book.

If it was, the Book of Mormon would have tried it's best to appeal to the modern zeitgeist of the time, and that would include overt racism towards so-called "inferior races".

 

[Dunemeister]

If it was, the Book of Mormon would have tried it's best to appeal to the modern zeitgeist of the time, and that would include overt racism towards so-called "inferior races".

Unless the author of the book was trying to be a bit more subtle? Just saying.

 

[rojse]

Unless the author of the book was trying to be a bit more subtle? Just saying.

Perhaps, but most people are going to miss "subtle".

 

[Dunemeister]

Perhaps, but most people are going to miss "subtle".

If critics of the Mormon Church are right, they didn't miss it at all.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thanks for posting this information Katz - its very useful!

Have you ever been a teacher - you are excellent at explaining things.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

An excellent thread. I managed to dig up a link to a magazine which has a few articles discussing the potential origins of the priesthood ban. I haven't been able to read them all again recently as the website seems a little temperamental. It should be a good read for people looking for more specific information. The main article itself is the one titled 'Mormonism's Negro Doctrine - An Historical Overview' and there are a few responses to it. These articles predate the repeal of the ban too, in case you would be inclined to view anything otherwise as conflicted.

Volume 08, Number 1, Spring 1973

(use the left hand side to navigate)

 

[rojse]

If critics of the Mormon Church are right, they didn't miss it at all.

Are you going to use "subtle" to try and persuade the typical 19th century American, particularly with low education rates and the like for the lower classes?

 

[Dunemeister]

Are you going to use "subtle" to try and persuade the typical 19th century American, particularly with low education rates and the like for the lower classes?

Low education and working or agrarian class =/= low intelligence. Besides, even if the writer were being subtle, he's not being that subtle.

 

[rojse]

Low education and working or agrarian class =/= low intelligence.

I was quite careful not to write that.

Besides, even if the writer were being subtle, he's not being that subtle.

What's the point of attempting subtlety if you are not going to be very subtle at all?

 

[Katzpur]

Dunemeister, as I promised a couple of days ago...

Consider these verses from the Bible (emphasis mine). Daniel 11:35 says, "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end..."

And Daniel 12:10 states, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

In both of these examples, the "to make white" clearly means to purify. How are those examples all that different from the ones in the Book of Mormon?

 

[keithnurse]

Dunemeister, as I promised a couple of days ago...

Consider these verses from the Bible (emphasis mine). Daniel 11:35 says, "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end..."

And Daniel 12:10 states, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

In both of these examples, the "to make white" clearly means to purify. How are those examples all that different from the ones in the Book of Mormon?

These verses in Daniel don't say anything about skin. The B O M verses specifically say skin being dark as a sign of gods curse on those people

 

[Katzpur]

These verses in Daniel don't say anything about skin. The B O M verses specifically say skin being dark as a sign of gods curse on those people

That's right, but I think that's a relatively insignificant difference. The people spoken of in Daniel were apparently "dark" if they were changed in some way to be made "white." Darkness is spoken of as representative of wickedness elsewhere in the Bible and lightness as representative of purity and goodness. When I read the Book of Mormon, I see a lot more references to God's unconditional love for all of His children, regardless of their color than I see references to partiality. Obviously, there was a long period of time when even most Latter-day Saints read those verses and interpreted them as you are interpreting them now. The leaders of the Church have, in recent years, though made a real point of saying that's not how they should have been interpreted. It's unfortunate that it took so long for this to happen, but I personally do not believe that when they were written (and of course, I don't believe they were "written" by a nineteenth century man at all), I don't think the original author was saying that God changed anybody's skin color. I know a lot of people (not just Mormons) who would agree that a wicked person's overall countenace has a "darker" look than a good person's, and I think that's how the verses are supposed to be interpreted.