THE ORIGINS OF
MORMON RACISM:
AN ACCOUNT OF ITS THEOLOGICAL
AND CULTURAL ROOTS, 1830-1844
Charles M. Turner
HS 605C
29 July 1979
On June 9, 1978, the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reversed its
long-standing practice of
withholding the L.D.S. priesthood from Negroes. On this
date, the Church-owned Deseret
News printed the following announcement from the
First Presidency of the
Church:
. . . we have pleaded long and
earnestly in behalf of these,
our faithful brethren,
spending many hours in the upper room
of the Temple
supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and
by revelation has confirmed
that the long-promised
day has come when every faithful,
worthy man in the
church may receive the holy priesthood,
with power to exercise
its divine authority, and enjoy with
his loved ones every
blessing that flows therefrom, including
the blessings of the
temple. Accordingly, all worthy male
members of the church
may be ordained to the priesthood
without regard for race
or color.1
This announcement represented a
sharp departure from traditional Mormon
doctrine and practice. Only
twelve years earlier, in 1966, one of the Twelve
Apostles of the Mormon Church
had stated with assurance that Negroes were
disqualified from holding the
L.D.S. priesthood:
Negroes in this life are denied
the priesthood; under no
circumstances can they
hold this delegation of authority
from the Almighty.
(Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message
of salvation is not
carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:
8, 12, 22) ....
The present status of the negro
rests purely and simply
on the foundation of
pre-existence . . . . he is receiving
here what he merits as
a result of the long pre-mortal
probation in the
presence of the Lord.
The negroes are not equal with
other races where the
receipt of certain
spiritual blessings are concerned,
particularly the
priesthood and the temple blessings that
flow therefrom, but
this inequality is not of man's origin.2
Until the receipt of the
revelation announced on June 9, 1978, apologists
for the long-time Mormon
practice of denying the L.D.S. priesthood to Negroes
had argued that a black skin
was "the mark of Cain," and a punishment
for lack of valiance in one's
pre-human existence.3 However, as the
institutional barriers to
black equality gradually were dismantled in the
years following the 1954
Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education school
desegregation decision, the
L.D.S. Church became increasingly conspicuous as
a remaining bastion of
discrimination. Pressure to abandon discrimination
grew, both within and outside
the Church.4 Defenders of the status quo
maintained that the Church's
practice could not be changed without a new
revelation, but no Mormon
president had received one since Wilford Woodruff's
"Manifesto" ended
polygamy in 1890.5 Finally, in the summer of 1978, came
the momentous announcement
that President Spencer W. Kimball had received just
such a revelation.
How did the Mormon Church become
enmeshed in such a doctrinal web, which
only a revelation could
unravel? And how did a church with such a strong
missionary emphasis come to
embrace a teaching which excluded one of the world's
three major racial groups from
participation in some of its foundational
ecclesiastical rites? The
answers to these questions are found in Mormonism's
early years and revolve around
the life and thought of Joseph Smith, Jr., the
Church's first Prophet,
Revelator, and Seer.
Mormonism was born in upstate New
York amidst the religious revivals of
the early nineteenth century.
At once a product of revivalist enthusiasm and
a reaction against certain of
revivalism's excesses, Mormonism shared with
revivalism an emphasis upon
individual religious experience and Biblical
literalism, while shunning
much of its emotionalism.6 Much like their
contemporaries, the
Cambellites, the early Mormons emphasized reasoned assent
to plain doctrine coupled with
a recovery of primitive Christianity's purity.
But unlike the followers of
Alexander Campbell, who insisted that the canon was
closed and that revelation had
ceased at the death of the apostles. Mormons
held that restoration of the
primitive purity of Christianity could only be
accomplished through ongoing
revelation.7
Mormonism, then, is a religion of
latter-day revelation. Accordingly, the
first place one must go in
order to understand early Mormon racial doctrine and
practice is to Mormonism's
revelatory documents.8 But these documents did not
originate in a vacuum. One of
Joseph Smith's contemporary critics remarked that
the Book of Mormon pronounced
upon all the great controversies of the Burned-
over District in the 1820's:
infant baptism, ordination, the
trinity, regeneration,
repentance,
justification, the fall of man, the atonement,
transubstantiation,
fasting, penance, church government,
religious experience,
the call to the ministry, the
general resurrection,
eternal punishment, who may baptize,
and even the question
of free masonry, republican govern-
ment and the rights of
man . . . .9
Mormon racial doctrine and
practice originated in a particular social-cultural
matrix. Therefore, a study of
the roots of Mormon racism must go beyond an
examination of Mormonism's
revelatory documents to an examination of the
environment in which these
documents originated.
The first of Mormonism's
revelatory documents is the Book of Mormon. First
published in 1830, it recounts
the origin and history of the American Indians.
The Jewish patriarch
Lehi—together with his family—is said to have fled
Jerusalem at the time of the
Babylonian captivity. These Hebrew refugees sailed
east across the Pacific and
settled in America. The bulk of the Book of Mormon
is a history of Lehi's warring
descendants, the Nephites and the Lamanites. Just
as the Book of Mormon
attempted a final solution of numerous religious and
social questions of the day,
so it claimed to provide conclusive evidence for
the widely held contemporary
belief that the American aborigine was of
Hebraic descent.10
Being the story of America's
aboriginal inhabitants, the Book of Mormon's
silence concerning Negroes is
unremarkable. However, its account of Indian
skin color is a portent of
things to come in Joseph Smith's later Negro
doctrine. The Book of Mormon
tells how the descendants of Lehi's two sons—
the rightoues Nephites and the
wicked Lamanites—peopled the American continent.
For over nine hundred years
the Lamanites warred and intrigued against their
godly brethren, finally
exterminating them in 385 A.D. in a great battle at
the hill Cumorah.11 But Joseph Smith did not stop with
explaining the red
man's Hebraic origins and the
genesis of the burial mounds which dotted the
upstate New York landscape. He
also sought to show that the native Americans'
skin color was the result of a
divine curse.
From the very outset of the saga,
Nephi had prophesied that the Lamanites
would fall into unbelief and
become a "dark and loathsome" people who would
ultimately destroy the
righteous Nephites.12 The Book of Alma describes how
this came to pass:
. . . the skins of the
Lamanites were dark, according
to the mark which was
set upon their fathers, which was
a curse upon them
because of their transgressions and
their rebellion against
their brethren. . . . therefore
they were cursed; and
the Lord God set a mark upon them
.... And this was done
that their seed might be
distinguished from the
seed of their brethren, that
thereby the Lord God
might preserve his people, that
they might not mix and
believe in incorrect traditions
.... And it came to
pass that whosoever did mingle
his seed with that of
the Lamanites did bring the same
curse upon his seed.
Therefore, whosoever suffered
himself to be led away
by the Lamanites was called under
that head, and there
was a mark set upon him.13
A dark skin, therefore, was the
sign of God's curse, stemming from
Lamanite wickedness, and was
intended to separate the righteous from the
corruptions of the wicked.14
But, having explained the origin
of Indian (Lamanite) skin color, Joseph
did not leave them under
perpetual divine malediction. Their condition was
not permanent. Just as in
earlier times some repentant Lamanites had been
rewarded by God with lightened
complexions,15 so latter-day repentance would
bring a similar result among the Indians. It was foretold how the
coming
forth of the Book of Mormon
would cause Lamanite rejoicing:
. . . for they shall know that
it is a blessing unto
them from the hand of
God; and their scales of darkness
shall begin to fall
from their eyes; and many generations
shall not pass away
among them save they shall be a
white and
delightsome people.16
So, although a darkened skin was a
sign of divine malediction, neither
God's disfavor nor its
consequences were necessarily permanent.
Repentant Indians would be
welcomed into the Church, where they could enjoy
every privilege of membership,
including the priesthood and temple blessings.17
As a consequence of their
newly-found righteousness, the Book of Mormon
anticipated that their skins
would gradually lighten. Indeed, the Book of
Mormon was dedicated to the
Lamanites and predicted their conversion in the
latter days.18 From the year of its inception, the Mormon
Church conducted
missionary work among the
Indians,19 a policy which it has pursued actively
throughout its history.
To punish an individual for the
sins of an ancestor was contrary to
Joseph Smith's teachings
concerning human nature in the Mormon Church's
Articles of Faith.20 The second article forthrightly declares,
"We believe
that men will be punished for
their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."21
The Book of Mormon invites all
mankind, irrespective of race, to repent and
come to the Lord: "...
and he denieth none that come unto him, black and
white, bond and free, male and
female; and he remembereth the heathen; and
all are alike unto God, both
Jew and Gentile." 22 Additionally, the Book of
Mormon embraces the ideals of
human liberty and equality, and, in one
passage, repudiates slavery.23
Joseph Smith translated the Book
of Mormon during the decade of the
1820's. The slavery question
presumably had been set to rest with the
Missouri Compromise, and the
immediate racial problem was the disposition of
the Indian tribes. The Book of Mormon treated the history of the
Indians
at length, but that of the
Negro not at all.24 In keeping with the well-
known "mark of Cain"
interpretation of Genesis 4:15, a dark skin was
associated (in the Book of
Mormon) with a divine curse, but such a skin
color was not held to be a
barrier to repentance and church membership.
So matters might have
remained, had not the slavery question risen to
prominence in the 1830's, both
for the nation and for the fledgling Mormon
Church.
Joseph Smith's first revelatory
pronouncement concerning Negroes
occurred in December, 1830.
This early statement is occasionally overlooked
by students of Mormon racial
attitudes. It is important because it
demonstrates that a
significant element in the Prophet's Negro doctrine already
existed before Mormonism's
troubles in Missouri began.25
Excited by God's latter-day
revelation in the Book of Mormon, the early
Saints—true to the
restorationist impulse—speculated about the "lost
books"
mentioned in the Bible. Of
particular interest were various writings known
to the Apostolic Church, such
as the prophecy of Enoch cited in Jude. To the
joy of his little flock (then
numbering around seventy souls), Joseph Smith
announced the Lord's
revelation of certain "doings of olden times, from the
prophecy of Enoch," in
December, 1830.26 Of critical interest is the
following verse:
And Enoch also beheld the
residue of the people
which were the sons of
Adam save it was the seed of
Cain, for the seed of
Cain were black, and had not
place among them.27
Here was an explicit application
to Negroes of the conclusions implicit
in the Book of Mormon's
treatment of the Indians. The old racist speculations
about the mark of Cain were
given the sanction of an explicit revelation:
Cain's descendants were set
apart from the rest of Adam's children by a
black skin.28 In addition, two rather confused verses stated that
the
offspring of one of Seth's
grandsons by the name of Canaan were cursed
with a black skin, and that
Enoch did not even bother preaching repentance
to these cursed inhabitants of
the antediluvian world.29
The happy reception of the lost
prophecy of Enoch encouraged the Prophet
Joseph, and, together with his
new scribe Sidney Rigdon, he worked on
revisions of the Old and New
Testaments during the years 1831 and 1832.
The Prophet spent many of his
spare hours in Ohio working to restore the
plain and precious truths
which had been lost from the Bible.30 Joseph
ceased work on his inspired
revision in February, 1833, and the unsettled
state of the Church kept him
from ever publishing it in the form he had
intended.31 Among the materials, dating from the
1831-1832 period, which
Joseph never published, is the
following revision of two critical verses in
Genesis:
And Noah awoke from his wine,
and knew what his
youngest son had done
unto him, and he said. Cursed
be Canaan; a servant of
servants shall he be unto his
brethren.
And he said. Blessed be the
Lord God of Shem; and
Canaan shall be his
servant, and a veil of darkness
shall cover him, that
he shall be known among all men.32
These verses together with the
passage from Enoch's lost prophecy show
that by early 1833 Joseph
Smith had embraced several key articles in a
racist creed. The "mark
of Cain" and the "curse on Canaan" referred
Negroid
characteristics back to an
ancient divine curse. Just as he elaborated upon
popular beliefs about the
Indians in the Book of Mormon, so Joseph gave the
sanction of divine revelation
to contemporary racist exegesis regarding
Negroes. But Joseph parted
company with pro-slavery apologists at certain key
points.33 While agreeing that blackness was a result
of God's curse and that
it was intended to prevent
racial amalgamation, he had not drawn anti-
egalitarian conclusions from
these premises. Rather, the Book of Mormon had
embraced equality, warned
those who looked contemptuously upon the dark-
skinned, and promised the
benefits of the Gospel to all races. Up until the
year 1833, there was little in
Mormon doctrine to suggest that Negroes
were to be subject to
ecclesiastical discrimination.
In practice, just the opposite of
discrimination was the case. Elijah
Abel, a black man, was
baptized into the Church by Ezekiel Roberts in
September, 1832. Another
Negro, known as "Black Pete," was a member during
the early days at Kirtland,
and was reputed to be a revelator. Black
membership in the Church was
never great, however, as Parley P. Pratt later
stated, "In fact one
dozen free negroes or mulattoes never have belonged to
our Society in any part of the
world, from its first organization to this
day, 1839."34
Matters might have continued in
this fashion, had the Saints remained
quartered near Lake Erie. The
early Mormons were of New England stock,35
settlers who sought
opportunity in western New York and Ohio. A non-
exclusionary policy toward
Negroes posed few social problems for them. But
the Saints did not long
confine themselves to New York and Ohio. They had
been directed by revelation to
settle in Jackson County, Missouri.
The early Mormons, like many of
their contemporaries, were millennialists.
They anticipated the imminent
Second Coming of Christ. Various signs and
tribulations would precede
this glorious event, which would usher in the
millennial kingdom.36 The Mormons added a novel twist to
millennial doctrine,
however; the Kingdom of God
was to be established in America, with its capital
at "Zion." In a
series of revelations in 1830 and 1831, it gradually became
clear that Zion was located in
the heart of the American continent, in
Missouri's Jackson County.37 The government's policy of removing Indian
tribes to reservations on the
Missouri frontier was God's doing. Here the
"remnant of Israel"
was being gathered in preparation for their latter-day
conversion and participation
in the Kingdom at Zion. Mormon believers
began pouring into the land of
Zion to prepare for Christ's coming and to
escape the tribulations of the
end times.38
Conflict soon broke out between
the growing numbers of Mormons and the
older settlers in Jackson
County. There were a number of deep-rooted causes
for this conflict: economic,
social, cultural, political, and religious
factors all played a part.39 One of the central bones of contention was
slavery. The Mormon immigrants
from the north were viewed with deep
suspicion by the southern-born
"old settlers." As early as the spring of
1832, a rumor of Mormon slave
tampering had circulated among the older
Missourians.40
The Mormon expectation that the
apocalyptic conflagration—an imminent
event—would be attended
by slave uprisings did nothing to calm the old
settlers' fears. On December
25, 1832—fifteen days after President Jackson's
famous Nullification
Proclamation—Joseph Smith received a revelation that
rebellion was about to break
out in South Carolina.41
This, he foretold,
would lead to civil war
between the northern and southern states. The
southern states would call
upon Great Britain and other nations for aid,
and the war would then become
world-wide. South Carolina's rebellion would
usher in the end times,
replete with bloodshed, famine, plagues, earthquakes,
thunder, and lightning. And,
most significantly, Joseph's prophecy foretold
that civil war would be
accompanied by slave uprisings:
And it shall come to pass,
after many days, slaves
shall rise up against
their masters, who shall be
marshaled and
disciplined for war.42
Although this revelation was not
put in print until 1851, it was circulated
in manuscript form among the
Saints. Its expectations can only have
exacerbated already strained
feelings in Missouri.43
The spark which ignited this
explosive situation was an article in
the July, 1833 issue of the Evening
and Morning Star, the Mormon newspaper
in Jackson County, Missouri.
The editor, W. W. Phelps, recognized how touchy
the racial situation was for
the Saints, and warned of the dangers if free
Negro Church members should
join the brethren in Zion. Entitled, "Free
People of Color," Phelps'
article quoted two clauses from the Missouri law
regarding free Negroes:
"Section 4.--Be it further
enacted, that hereafter
no free negro or
mulatto, other than a citizen of someone
of the United States,
shall come into or settle in this
state under any pretext
whatever; and upon complaint . . .
if ... such person
shall not produce a certificate . . .
evidencing that he is a
citizen of such state, the
justice shall command
him forthwith to depart from this
state . . . [upon pain
of jailing and ten lashes].
"Section t.--Be it further
enacted, that if any
person shall . . .
bring into this state any free negro
or mulatto, not having
in his possession a certificate of
citizenship as required
by this act, (he or she) shall
forfeit any pay, for
every person so brought, the sum of
five hundred dollars .
. . ."
Phelps then went on to observe:
Slaves are real estate in this
and other states,
and wisdom would
dictate great care among the branches
of the church of Christ
in this subject. So long as
we have no special rule
in the church, as to people of
color, let prudence
guide; and while they, as well as
we, are in the hands of
a merciful God, we say: Shun
every appearance of
evil.44
Another article in the same issue
of the Evening and Morning Star
gave the following advice to
those Saints planning to immigrate to Zion:
Our brethren will find an
extract of the law of this
state, relative to free
people of color, on another page
of this paper. Great
care should be taken on this point.
The saints must shun
every appearance of evil.--As to the
slaves we have nothing
to say. In connection with the
wonderful events of
this age, much is doing towards .
abolishing slavery, and
colonizing blacks, in Africa.45
It seems clear that Phelps
intended to discourage uninformed black Church
members from migrating into a
hornets' nest. Perhaps Elijah Abel (who later
moved to Nauvoo) or
"Black Pete" was contemplating such a move. However,
his observation that blacks
were free to join the Church ("we have no special
rule"), his attempts at
explaining slave-state legalities to northerners for
whom they were obviously
alien, and his injudicious enthusiasm over the imminent
latter-day end of slavery were
too much for the older Missourians. The quotation
of the Missouri statute
requiring citizenship papers was interpreted as a set
of instructions for
soon-to-come Mormon Negro immigrants.46
The slavery question was the
catalyst which precipitated the "old settlers"
into action against the Mormon
newcomers. A mass meeting drew up a manifesto
demanding expulsion of the
Saints from Jackson County. Furiously backpeddling
to retrieve the situation,
Phelps published an "Extra" of the Evening and
Morning Star on July
16, 1833. In it he protested that his intention "was not
only to stop free people of
color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent
them from being admitted as
members of the Church." He professed to share
with the older Missourians a
fear of slave insurrections, and concluded:
"To be short, we are
opposed to have free people of color admitted into the
state; and we say, that none
will be admitted into the Church . . . ."47 In
his haste to defuse the
explosive situation, Phelps overstated matters. The
Church had no discriminatory
policy directed against Negroes, as he himself had
noted in the July issue when
he counseled prudence.
Phelps' "Extra" proved
to be of no avail. The Missourians turned to mob
violence. On July 20,
Phelps" printing office at Independence was destroyed,
and Bishop Edward Partridge
was tarred and feathered. Faced with the mob's
superior force, the Saints
were forced into an agreement to leave Jackson
County. Attempts by the Church
leaders to secure protection from state
authorities proved fruitless,
and, in November, the majority of the Saints were
ruthlessly driven out of
Jackson County. Exposed to sever sufferings due to
cold and hunger, they sought
refuge in Clay County, Missouri.48
Events in Missouri forced Joseph
Smith to come to grips with the
Negro question. His initial
reaction, recorded in December, "was typical
of a New Englander, which he
was ... a revelation that unequivocably
condemned slavery."49 In the revelation God declared:
That every man may act in
doctrine and principle
pertaining to futurity,
according to the moral agency
which I have given unto
him, that every man may be
accountable for his own
sins in the day of judgment.
Therefore it is not
right that any man should be
in bondage one to
another.50
But such an anti-slavery stance
jeopardized the Saints' tenuous position
in Missouri, where the
legislature planned to set aside a separate area for
Mormon settlement. It also
threatened to repel potential Southern converts
and contributors.51 Joseph's journey to Missouri at the head
of the relief
expedition known as
"Zion's Camp" (May-July, 1834), when he secretly
visited
Jackson County and witnessed
the devastation, must have impressed upon him
the explosiveness of the
slavery issue.52NOTES
The policy of excluding Negroes
from the priesthood began to develop
during this period.
Unfortunately, the document which records the earliest
developments is dated
forty-five years after the fact and was recorded at a
time when Mormon leaders were
anxious to justify their restrictive racial policies.
In 1879, Zebedee Coltrin
recollected events from 1834. That spring, he and
J. P. Green were sent by the
Prophet on a southern expedition to solicit
support for the suffering
Missouri Saints. During the homeward journey, the
two men fell into argument
over Negroes' right to the priesthood, a question
presumably raised by questions
they faced in the South. Coltrin argued that
Negroes had no such right, and
the incensed Green threatened to report his
comrade for "preaching
false doctrine." Upon their return to Kirtland, Green
did just that when the two men
gave account of their mission to Joseph Smith:
. . . Brother Green was as good
as his word and reported
to Brother Joseph that
I said that the Negro could not
hold the Priesthood.
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.'
He made no reference to
Scripture at all, but such was his
decision. I don't
recollect ever having any conversation
with him afterwards on
this subject. But I have heard him
say in public that no
person having the least particle of
Negro blood can hold
the Priesthood.
The same document records A. O. Smoot's recollections to the same effect:
... W. W. Patten, Warren
Parrish and Thomas 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
Prieshood /sic/. And by those
brethren it was decided
they would not confer the Priest-
hood until they had
consulted the Prophet Joseph, and
subsequently they
communicated with him. His decision,
as I understood 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 the 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.53
The Missouri experience, coupled
with the growing L.D.S. missionary
effort in the South, dictated
this new departure in Joseph's policy. The
Saints could not expect to
find security in Missouri or missionary success in
the South until this critical
question was resolved. Theology and
ecclesiology do not develop in
a vacuum. There is an interplay between
culture and theology. The
changed social matrix in which the Saints now
found themselves led to new
departures in religious doctrine and practice.
Although there is no mention
of the priesthood question, this new departure
is definitely reflected in the
Church's declaration on "Government and Laws
in General," which was
adopted at the general assembly of the Church,
August 17, 1835, at Kirtland,
Ohio, which met to adopt the new book of
Doctrine and Covenants of
the Church of the Latter-day Saints. The final
article stated:
We believe it just to preach
the gospel to the
nations of the earth .
. . ; but we do not believe it
right to interfere with
bond-servants, neither preach
the gospel to, nor
baptize them contrary to the will
and wish of their
masters, nor to meddle with or
influence them in the
least to cause them to be dis-
satisfied with their
situations in this life, thereby
jeopardizing the lives
of men; such interference we
believe to be unlawful
and unjust, and dangerous to
the peace of every
government allowing human beings to
be held in servitude.54
This was the Church's first
official policy declaration concerning
Negroes. Unlike many of the
earlier pronouncements, which dealt with
the theology of race, this was
a practical statement of policy, intended
to defuse the Missourians'
fear of slave tampering and to ease the task of
missionaries in the South. It
is a fine illustration of the interplay
between social change and
religious belief and practice.
Joseph Smith did not confine
himself to a pragmatic statement of
policy. In 1835 he translated
the Book of Abraham, one of his landmark
revelations. One passage in
the Book of Abraham provided the theological
justification for all the
following years of discrimination against blacks
holding the L.D.S. priesthood,
long after the slavery question had been put
to rest.
The story of the Book of Abraham's
translation is fascinating. Joseph
had been studying Greek and
Hebrew. This, coupled with his ability in rendering
"Reformed Egyptian"
characters, had caused his reputation as a translator to
spread abroad.55 A test of Joseph's translating powers came
during the
summer of 1835, when Michael
Chandler brought a collection of mummies and
papyri to Kirtland and
inquired if the Prophet could translate them. Joseph
proceeded to give a brief
demonstration of his abilities, and, after the
Mormons had purchased the
antiquities, he proceeded to translate them in
earnest. He announced that the
papyri contained the writings of the patriarchs
Abraham and Joseph, and from
July through November he worked intermittently on
his translation of the Book of
Abraham (Joseph's writings were never trans-
lated).56 Although the Book of Abraham did not
appear in print until 1842,
the text dealing with Negroes
was completed during 1835.57 The critical
text read:
Now this king of Egypt was a
descendant from the loins
of Ham, and was a
partaker of the blood of the Canaanites
by birth.
From this descent sprang all
the Egyptians, and thus
the blood of the
Canaanites was preserved in the land.
The land of Egypt being
first discovered by a woman,
who was the daughter of
Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus,
which in the Chaldean
signifies Egypt, which signifies
that which is
forbidden.
When this woman discovered the
land it was under
water, who afterward
settled her sons in it; and thus, from
Ham, sprang that race
which preserved the curse in the land.
Now the first
government of Egypt was established by
Pharaoh, the eldest
sons of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham
. . . .
Pharaoh, being a righteous man,
established his
kingdom and judged his
people wisely and justly all his
days, seeking earnestly
to imitate that order established
by the fathers in the
first generations, in the days of the
first patriarchal
reign, even in the reign of Adam, and
also of Noah, his
father, who blessed him with the blessings
of the earth, and with
the blessings of wisdom, but cursed
him as pertaining to
the Priesthood.
Now, Pharaoh, being of that
lineage by which he could
not have the right of
Priesthood, notwithstanding the
Pharaohs would fain
claim it from Noah, through Ham58 ....
This passage carried Mormon racial
doctrine a step beyond Joseph Smith's
previous teachings. Until this
time, Joseph had confined himself to the
"mark of Cain" and
"curse on Canaan" motifs. This text developed these
motifs in a unique fashion. To
be sure, southern racists had justified
slavery by arguing that Ham's
wife was a descendant of the cursed race of
Cain, and that thereby the
curse (and its mark of blackness) was transmitted
to the African peoples.59 But Joseph taught that Ham's wife,
Egyptus,
was a descendant of the
antediluvian "Canaan" whose descendants had been
cursed with blackness. Through
Egyptus, the curse survived the flood and
was transmitted to the Hamitic
peoples. (Apparently Joseph also believed that
Egyptus was a descendant of
Cain, because in 1842 he referred to Negroes as
"sons of Cain.")60 And Joseph now added a critical dimension
to the "curse"
and "mark" motifs.
Ham's offspring were ineligible to hold the priesthood,
due to the cursed blood
transmitted through their mother. Even a righteous
Hamite, such as the first
Pharaoh, "could not have the right of Priesthood."
This passage became the
standard proof text for denying L.D.S. priesthood to
Negroes until President
Spencer Kimball's 1978 revelation.
The Negro doctrine was developed
amidst many external pressures on the
Saints. After the troubles in
Missouri began, Joseph was anxious to
dissociate the Church from
suspicion of abolitionism. The non-slaveholding
Mormons were deeply suspect in
Missouri. Some of Joseph's own statements
gave them further grounds for
mistrust, and the abolitionist sentiment among
some Church members in
Kirtland was a known fact. Oliver Cowdery, the editor,
published an anti-abolitionist
notice in the Northern Times in October, 1835.
He took note of some
abolitionist letters-to-the-editor he had received, and
declared that he would have
nothing to do with abolitionism, since it would
only disturb the peace and
constitutional harmony of the nation.61 Joseph
Smith's warnings to Patten,
Parrish, Marsh, and Smoot concerning discretion
in their southern missionary
labors date from this period. In 1838 he recorded
his answers to a series of
frequently asked questions, including one about
abolitionism:
Thirteenth—"Are the
Mormons abolitionists?"
No, unless delivering
the people from priestcraft,
and the priests from
the power of Satan, should be
considered abolition.
But we do not believe in
setting the negroes
free.62
Following the visit to Kirtland of
an abolitionist speaker, Joseph
wrote his longest attack on
abolitionism, which appeared in the April,
1836, Messenger and
Advocate. He expressed his desire to dispel false
impressions which might be
created by the abolitionist's presence; the
lectures sounded forth upon
"nearly naked walls," observed Joseph. Mormon
abolitionists were rebuked for
desiring to withdraw from fellowship with
slaveholding brethren. Such
attitudes, he said, harmed the southern
missionary effort.
Furthermore, he stated, he did not believe "that the
people of the North have any
more right to say that the South shall not hold
slaves, then the South have to
say the North shall." Such sentiments threatened
to divide the union. He then
launched into an elaborate Biblical defense of
slavery. Negro servitude, he
argued, was a consequence of God's curse on Ham's
son Canaan (Gen. 9:25,26). The
world's history demonstrated this singular
prophecy's remarkably
fulfillment. The abolitionists were interfering with
God's plan, feverishly working
against His decrees. But, "God can do His own
work, without the aid of those
who are not dictated by His counsel." Joseph
was determined not to offend
slaveholding southerners and cited several of
their favorite Biblical texts
in support of slavery. He concluded with the
hope that "no one who is
authorized from this Church to preach the Gospel,
will so far depart from the
Scriptures, as to be found stirring up strife and
sedition against our brethren
of the South."63
Despite this and other strong
denials of abolitionist sentiment,64
relations with the "old
settlers" in Missouri deteriorated badly during the
first half of 1836. At a June
29th meeting, at Liberty, Missouri, the
old settlers passed
resolutions to expel the Saints from Clay County. Among
the several reasons cited for
desiring the Mormons' departure were the
following:
They are eastern men, whose
manners, habits, customs,
and even dialect, are
essentially different from our
own. They are non-slaveholders,
and opposed to slavery,
which in this peculiar
period, when abolitionism has
reared its deformed and
haggard visage in our land, is
well calculated to
excite deep and abiding prejudices
in any community where
slavery is tolerated and protected.65
In July, both the Missouri Saints
and Joseph Smith strongly denied the charge
of abolitionism. Joseph cited
the April issue of the Messenger and Advocate
as proof: "... you can
easily see it was put forth for no other reason
than to correct the public
mind generally, without a reference or expectation
of any excitement of the
nature of the one now in your country.66
Nevertheless, the Saints decided
to leave Clay County peaceably. In
September they began
relocating in an almost uninhabited site, which became
known as Far West, Caldwell,
County. The respite from harassment was of short
duration. First the Saints in
Ohio were driven to seek refuge in Far West.
And then in early 1839 the
Mormons were driven from Missouri by violent
persecution. They abandoned
the slave state of Missouri for the free state of
Illinois, settling in a small
hamlet along the Mississippi called Commerce,
which they renamed
"Nauvoo."67
Joseph Smith's thought and policy
toward Negroes during the Nauvoo years
(1840-1844) reveal some
interesting zig-zags. On the one hand, Elijah Abel, a
good friend of the Prophet who
had been admitted to the priesthood in 1836
(following the
translation of the Book of Abraham's history of Ham and Egyptus)
was ordained a Seventy on
April 4, 1841.68 Yet it was during the previous month
that Joseph at last commenced
publishing the Book of Abraham, with its racist
doctrine.69
It seems clear that Joseph's
earlier pro-slavery statements had been a
response to the Saints'
precarious position in Missouri, although his fear
that civil unrest would result
from abolitionism was probably sincere enough.
It is unlikely that Joseph
ever felt sympathy for slavery, given his earlier
egalitarian pronouncements in
the Book of Mormon. His statements during
the Nauvoo years confirm such
a conclusion. In a January, 1843 conversation
with Orson Hyde, he declared
his opinion that the degraded condition of Negroes
was due to deprivation:
. . . 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 or respectability.
The slaves in
Washington are more refined than many in
high places ....
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.70
Trying to use the Mormon vote to
gain some national political leverage,
Joseph Smith declared himself
a presidential candidate in 1844. His
platform contained the
following slavery plank: 1) that the slave states
move to abolish slavery by
1850; 2) that Congress appropriate funds (from
the sale of public lands and
from cuts in congressional salaries) to pay
slaveholders a fair price for
their freed slaves; and 3) that the "poor
black man" be unshackled
and hired for labor like any other human being; for
"an hour of virtuous
liberty on earth is worth a whole etermity /sic/ of
bondage."71 And, in an April interview with Josiah
Quincy, he repeated this
plan, while repudiating
abolitionism as an unconstitutional meddling with
property rights and a
dangerous threat of insurrection. His anti-slavery
sentiments were clearly
expressed in his criticism of the Missouri Compromise
as an unjustifiable concession
to slavery designed to promote Henry Clay's
presidential ambitions.72
Freed from the constraints imposed
by the Saints' stay in Missouri,
Joseph once again expressed
the same egalitarian social philosophy which had
appeared in the Book of Mormon
and in his earliest writings. But Joseph
was more than a social
theorist and political commentator. His prophetic
pronouncements were revered as
divine revelations and were preserved as such.
The racial speculations which
he incorporated into the Book of Mormon,
the Book of Moses, and the
Book of Abraham were destined to outlive his
own era and to become Mormon
dogmas. Later Mormon leaders made doctrines
of the "mark of
Cain," the "curse on Canaan," and black
ineligibility to hold
the priesthood. Furthermore,
there were some loose ends in Joseph's
revelations which needed to be
tied together. An effort was made to reconcile
the idea of an entire race
resting under a divine curse with the idea that no
one is punished for an
ancestor's sin. The reconciliation was accomplished
through reference to the
pre-existent state, so that one was not cursed
because born a Negro, but born
a Negro because cursed for pre-existent
failings.73 Such theology was well enough suited for
the days of Plessy v.
Ferguson, but in the
days following Brown v. Board of Education it increasingly
became an albatross hanging on
the Mormon Church's neck. Joseph Smith had
sought to explain the 19th
century world in 19th century categories. But
approaching the end of the
20th century, his racial speculations no longer
seemed helpful explanations of
the inferior status of blacks. In the generation
which witnessed the rise of
Black Power, they seemed anachronistic, genetically
absurd, a barrier to L.D.S.
missionary efforts, an embarrassment to the Church,
and the object of increasingly
militant and frequent protests.74 Just as social
pressures resulted in the
abandonment of polygamy without repudiation of
Joseph Smith's prophetic
pronouncements on the subject, so similar forces
led to the abandonment of
racial discrimination in similar fashion. And
both required a similar
mechanism of abandonment: a new revelation.