Skip to content

Proving out scripture: How Mormons Became White and Delightsome

July 14, 2015

Religion of a Different ColorEvery so often, I’ve seen an article or review or Q&A that references Paul Reeve’s book “Religion of a Different Color.” To be totally frank, I have not read the book and up until very recently, the various posts discussing the book haven’t really interested me in it. The talk about Mormons as being seen as racially compromised seems just…too disconnected from present reality. I have felt that by focusing on this past, this would somehow distract from talking about how the whiteness of modern Mormonism pervades today.

Paul wrote an article on the Oxford University Press’s blog answering the question: “Are there black Mormons?”, and that got me rethinking about the subject.

As he discusses the history:

The irony lies in the historical evolution of that public perception. Black Saints were among the first to arrive in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847 and have been a part of the Mormon experience from its beginnings. The first documented black person to join this American-born faith was Black Pete, a former slave who was baptized in 1830, when the fledgling movement was less than a year old. Other blacks trickled in over the course of the nineteenth century and are woven into the Mormon story. At least two black men were ordained to the faith’s highest priesthood in its first two decades.

Mormons were so inclusive in the nineteenth century that accusations from the outside tended to focus on the perception that they welcomed everyone. In an American culture that favored the segregation and exclusion of marginalized groups, the Mormons stood out. The allegations leveled against them included that they had “opened an asylum for rogues and vagabonds and free blacks,” that they embraced “all nations and colors,” that they maintained “communion with the Indians,” and that their missionaries “walk[ed] out” with “colored women.” The perception was that they welcomed “all classes and characters,” received “aliens by birth,” and integrated people from “different parts of the world” into their communities and congregations.

As I read this, I think about what could have been. The LDS church could have been so different. It could have stayed inclusive. It could have stayed radical and prophetic.

But as we all know, it didn’t.

Reeve puts it in the article very succinctly like so:

In the nineteenth century, one way to measure whiteness was in distance from blackness—and so it was with the Mormons. Over the course of the nineteenth century, they moved away from their own black converts toward whiteness. In an uneven process, Mormon leaders barred black men from the lay priesthood and black men and women from the faith’s crowning temple rituals, policies firmly held in place by the early twentieth century.

So successful were Mormons at claiming whiteness for themselves that by the time Mitt Romney sought the White House in 2012, he was described as the “whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.”

“They moved away from their own black converts toward whiteness.” Isn’t that interesting?

There is a part immediately after the quoted section that I’m not  a huge fan of, but I’ll share it here just to comment on it:

Even though the Church of the Latter-day Saints includes over one million members in Brazil and 400,000 in Africa and is more racially diverse in the United States than mainline Protestant churches, public perception lags behind.

Most American Christian denominations have racial problems, yes, but I dislike this contrast of Mormonism to mainline Protestantism that makes it seem like the LDS church’s race problem is more of a problem of “public perception” than any reality. The church has one million members in Brazil (how many of them are active, though? How many of them would self-identify as LDS, though?) and 400k in Africa…but who is represented in leadership?

But the thing I’m more intrigued about is the idea that the church — whether consciously or unconsciously — moved toward whiteness. Because the thing I thought about was…isn’t that exactly what LDS scriptures talk about.

For however inclusive early Mormonism was, it still has to grapple with 2 Nephi 5:21 vs 2 Nephi 30:5-6… —

And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers.

And then shall they rejoice; 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 pure and a delightsome people.

Mormons actually did it. They let the scales of darkness fall from their eyes and became a pure and delightsome people.

It didn’t involve necessarily a transformation of individual bodies, so much as a transformation of the church body as a whole.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

2 Comments
  1. Just a point of info…. Liberal and anti-mormon revisionist history has completely ignored Mormon historical policy’s concerning the Blacks and the Priesthood issue.

    Everyone believe “blacks” were denied the Priesthood in the LDS Church. However, that is an outright lie. Those of “African” Lineage were denied the Priesthood, including whites. This in fact meant that there have been 100,000’s of blacks in the history of the Church who HAVE gotten the Priesthood prior to the ban lifting. Blacks of various Islands, blacks of India and other country’s, some blacks of Central/South America were ALL given the Priesthood when their lineage was determined by Geneology and Patriarchal Blessing. These were blacks just as black as any African black. Yes, “black” was a possible sign of the curse per policy, but it was not the determining factor.

    Moreso, the religion itself taught against bigotry and for tolerance no matter creed or color, so much we don’t even have “ministry’s” against other religions like anti-mormons do against Mormonism. So, while there have been some wrong theory’s and some bad or misunderstood statements in history, the religion and it’s people have always strived to live the values the Gospel of Christ has taught. Anyone that knows faithful mormons, know we live our religion. Some humanity in the past doesn’t equal a “racist” religion, any more than Christ was racist for restricting the Gospel to only Jews while alive and it taking Peter getting a revelation after Christ’s death to officially take the Gospel to the Gentil, or God is racist because he denied Priesthood from being given the every Tribe (Lineage) other than the Tribe of Lehi.

    The ban never was about racism with Mormonism. If anything it’s the racism in the world that created the ban. And the ban ended the exact moment that racism in mass ended. Coincidence? Nope.

  2. The racial construct of “blackness” in America relates to African origin, so your comment is basically saying, “blacks were denied the priesthood”

    Edit: the way that you can know that the priesthood ban for blacks relates to the American racial construct of blackness is precisely by noting that it followed the one-drop rule — if you were of mixed-races, then you were black. When you say “whites in Africa were denied the priesthood,” what you really mean to say is that “whites in Africa were presumed to have black African ancestry unless they could prove otherwise.” But this is a restatement of the one-drop rule, basically.

    So, your comment is basically a confusion between constructs of race and constructs for color.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: