Black LDS History: A Crash Course

[Third Hour]

As a church, we focus pretty heavily on our history. Who hasn’t heard stories of the early Saints in Nauvoo or the members of the Church who gave up everything they had to pull a handcart all the way to Salt Lake? Sadly, like most history in the United States, the Church’s history has been white-washed. I don’t think this is any reflection on the Church itself but rather a reflection of our nation’s struggle with race. In fact, the Church has published numerous first-account sources, articles, biographies and more of early black Latter-day Saints on their website — but decades of tradition is hard to kill, which is why I think a lot of members have never heard about black LDS pioneers. It’s also important to note that some early Saints, especially those from the North were ardently against slavery. Joseph Smith wasn’t quiet about his abolitionist stance, which caused a lot the persecution the Church faced in Missouri (a slave state at the time). In honor...

View the full article

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Third Hour said:

Sadly, like most history in the United States, the Church’s history has been white-washed.

Oh, for crying out loud . . . 

[Guest Scott]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, for crying out loud . . . 

It is true, at least for the Church history we hear in Sunday School, Seminary, Institute, etc.  

The real history is often more interesting.  

For example, events like Joseph Smith setting up a tavern in Nauvoo, getting in fist fights with other leaders (on several occasions), or beating the crap out of someone for money during a tough man competition in order to bail Porter Rockwell out of jail, etc. are seldom mentioned in places like Sunday School.

The history we hear in Sunday School and other places is very watered down, and in my opinion at least, not nearly as interesting as the non-whitewashed version. 

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, for crying out loud . . . 

Yeah.  That statement passed the author, editors, and site reviewers... and went into print.  It really did.  Sigh.

[anatess2]

Just now, Scott said:

It is true, at least for the Church history we hear in Sunday School, Seminary, Institute, etc.  

The real history is often more interesting.  

For example, events like Joseph Smith setting up a tavern in Nauvoo, getting in fist fights with other leaders (on several occasions), or beating the crap out of someone for money during a tough man competition in order to bail Porter Rockwell out of jail, etc. are seldom mentioned in places like Sunday School.

The history we hear in Sunday School and other places is very watered down, and in my opinion at least, not nearly as interesting as the non-whitewashed version. 

Psst... Sunday School is not a history class.  It is a FAITH class.

[Guest Scott]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Psst... Sunday School is not a history class.  It is a FAITH class.

True, but every few years Church History is covered in Sunday School.   The version we hear in Sunday School, Institute, and Seminary is definitely watered down.     PS, Faith and history are not mutually exclusive.  

 

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

True, but every few years Church History is covered in Sunday School.   The version we hear in Sunday School, Institute, and Seminary is definitely watered down.     PS, Faith and history are not mutually exclusive.  

 

If you call concentrating on faith-promotion rather than controversies is white-washing then I got no other words for you.

[NeuroTypical]

Go gently on the poor author.  She's afflicted by the same thing that has afflicted many of us at one time: youthful idealism mixed with zeal, light on wisdom and experience.

 

If you can get past the breathless world-saving, it's actually a pretty cool article.  Seems to be well-sourced.  I love me a good linked-up article.  

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Guest Scott]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you call concentrating on faith-promotion rather than controversies is white-washing then I got no other words for you.

I didn't say that it was bad or incorrect; I said that it was watered down.  This is intentional and it almost has to be that way in Sunday school since studying the non-watered down version would lead to endless debates.

In Sunday School all history and scripture studies are watered down (including all years, not just Church History) and only selected parts of the scriptures are discussed.   The same is true of all churches I know of.  

Anyone who has read through all of the scriptures or Church history can see this.

While I would disagree with discussing non-watered down versions of history and scriptures in Sunday school, I see no reason not to do it here.    A lot of our Church history is really interesting.

The incidences I mentioned don't make me think any less of the Church or Joseph, but these are real events which make the history much more interesting and put a human face on the characters discussed.    

 

 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Go gently on the poor author.  She's afflicted by the same thing that has afflicted many of us at one time: youthful idealism mixed with zeal, light on wisdom and experience.

 

I'm Asian.  We don't take it easy on our young'uns.  Ain't got no time for that.  They're old enough to do lots of damage.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I didn't say that it was bad or incorrect; I said that it was watered down.  This is intentional and it almost has to be that way in Sunday school since studying the non-watered down version would lead to endless debates.

In Sunday School all history and scripture studies are watered down (including all years, not just Church History) and only selected parts of the scriptures are discussed.   The same is true of all churches I know of.  

Anyone who has read through all of the scriptures or Church history can see this.

While I would disagree with discussing non-watered down versions of history and scriptures in Sunday school, I see no reason not to do it here.    A lot of our Church history is really interesting.

The incidences I mentioned don't make me think any less of the Church or Joseph, but these are real events which make the history much more interesting and put a human face on the characters discussed.    

 

 

Watered-down has zero relation to white washing.

[NeuroTypical]

 

So yeah, a strong claim.  But again, in defense of the young author, she figures it was more of a dumb cultural human thing, than anything specifically to do with our church.

Quote

 

I don’t think this is any reflection on the Church itself but rather a reflection of our nation’s struggle with race. In fact, the Church has published numerous first-account sources, articles, biographies and more of early black Latter-day Saints on their website — but decades of tradition is hard to kill...

 

Honestly, I like piling on bad articles as much as the next guy, but the more I read the whole thing, the more I find agreeable and well done. (Again, I'm a sucker for lots of relevant source links.)

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

So yeah, a strong claim.  But again, in defense of the young author, she figures it was more of a dumb cultural human thing, than anything specifically to do with our church.

Honestly, I like piling on bad articles as much as the next guy, but the more I read the whole thing, the more I find agreeable and well done. (Again, I'm a sucker for lots of relevant source links.)

 

I think you're missing the point of the objection...

The YOUNG author just used white-wash (with a dash even) in an article about Black LDS History.  It's also referred to as "out of touch".

 

[Guest Scott]

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Watered-down has zero relation to white washing.

Not really. 

See Neurotypical's screen shot. 

Glossing over controversial topics is still whitewashing.  Being selective or biased about what to present is still whitewashing.

As I said before, that isn't necessarily a bad thing in Sunday school.

A non watered down or non-whitewashed version of the a story of Lot, for example would to cover the entire story, not just pieces of it.  In Sunday School, much of the story is intentionally skipped over (more specifically Genesis 19:30-36).  Sorry, but this is whitewashing.  It's not necessarily a bad thing either since studying the entire account in Sunday School would distract from the point of the lesson.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Not really. 

See Neurotypical's screen shot. 

Glossing over controversial topics is still whitewashing.  Being selective or biased about what to present is still whitewashing.

As I said before, that isn't necessarily a bad thing in Sunday school.

A non watered down or non-whitewashed version of the a story of Lot, for example would to cover the entire story, not just pieces of it.  In Sunday School, much of the story is intentionally skipped over (more specifically Genesis 19:30-36).  Sorry, but this is whitewashing.  It's not necessarily a bad thing either since studying the entire account in Sunday School would distract from the point of the lesson.

 

See my response to NT's screenshot.

[Guest Scott]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

See my response to NT's screenshot.

I don't see how the "definition" of whitewashing in the screen shot you posted has any resemblance to how it was used in the article.   No dictionary I see uses the definition on your screenshot.  

Edited February 27, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't see how the "definition" of whitewashing in the screen shot you posted has any resemblance to how it was used in the article.   No dictionary I see uses the definition on your screenshot.  

The topic is Black LDS History.  Written for a 2019 audience.

I'll give you an example.  You're writing an article about Homosexuality in the LDS Church and you say, Mormon members are always gay.  As in happy.  Which is the dictionary definition of gay for most of the history of the English language...

[Guest Scott]

48 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The topic is Black LDS History.  Written for a 2019 audience.

I'll give you an example.  You're writing an article about Homosexuality in the LDS Church and you say, Mormon members are always gay.  As in happy.  Which is the dictionary definition of gay for most of the history of the English language...

I would agree if the word whitewashed were usually used in the same way in the screenshot that you posted, but most people don't use it that way, even in 2019.   In fact, I have never heard of that definition before you posted it.  I had to search for and look it up to find something similar to your screenshot.     Where did your screenshot even come from?  I knew what the writer was referring to when she said whitewash and it had nothing to do with your definition. 

Here is what dictionaries (all I can find basically say the same thing) say about the definition of whitewash:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whitewash

Here is what dictionaries says about the word gay:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

Yes, they include the historic definition of the word, but they also contain the definitions of the word in context of homosexual.  

If it is that big of deal, I'd just email the author and tell her to use the word watered down, rather than whitewashed.  I prefer the phrase watered down anyway.  
 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Scott

[Just_A_Guy]

I note that the article, for all its virtues, doesn’t mention the fact that Joseph Ball apostatized.  It doesn’t mention Jane James’s historically suspect recollection that Joseph Smith offered her an adoptive sealing at a time when adoptive sealings were not a thing.  And it doesn’t mention William McCary (whose antics were probably the immediate precursor to the ban) at all.

Is the article itself a “whitewash”?

Edited February 27, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I would agree if the word whitewashed were usually used in the same way in the screenshot that you posted, but most people don't use it that way, even in 2019.   In fact, I have never heard of that definition before you posted it.  I had to search for and look it up to find something similar to your screenshot.     Where did your screenshot even come from?  I knew what the writer was referring to when she said whitewash and it had nothing to do with your definition. 

Here is what dictionaries (all I can find basically say the same thing) say about the definition of whitewash:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whitewash

Here is what dictionaries says about the word gay:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

Yes, they include the historic definition of the word, but they also contain the definitions of the word in context of homosexual.  

If it is that big of deal, I'd just email the author and tell her to use the word watered down, rather than whitewashed.  I prefer the phrase watered down anyway.  
 

Dude... whitewash, feminist, alt right, patriarchy, toxic masculinity, mansplaining.... welcome to 2019.

Edited February 27, 2019 by anatess2

[Suzie]

It doesn’t mention Jane James’s historically suspect recollection that Joseph Smith offered her an adoptive sealing at a time when adoptive sealings were not a thing.

JAG, wasn't Emma Smith who made the request?(if my memory is right) James told the story to President Taylor.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

JAG, wasn't Emma Smith who made the request?(if my memory is right) James told the story to President Taylor.
 

This is all per James’s memory, of course; but it may have been.  

I disagree with a lot of Meg Stout’s conclusions and suggestions in the “A Faithful Joseph” series she published at Millennial Star; but she’s a refreshingly original thinker, and I think one of her theories is that the sealing proposal to Jane was supposed to be a *marriage*, not an *adoption* (for a brief period Emma was recruiting wives for Joseph—or so she thought); but that Jane’s later recollections were influenced by the rise of adoptive sealings during intervening years and led her to misinterpret the nature of the sealing that had been offered to her.  It makes a lot of sense, given the absence of adoptive sealings during Joseph’s lifetime.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[askandanswer]

This question is particulary directed at @Just_A_Guy and @Suzie but of course everyone is welcome to assist. I've been meaning to ask this since last December but my procrastination skills needed a bit of a workout. 

Last December, my son was looking into the essay on Race and the Priesthood. One sentence within the essay says :  At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.9

He looked up footnote 9 which says

9. Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and Feb. 5, 1852, George D. Watt Papers, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, transcribed from Pitman shorthand by LaJean Purcell Carruth; “To the Saints,” Deseret News, April 3, 1852, 42.

These sources can be viewed here  

https://catalog.lds.org/assets/85e62ed8-dca0-4860-8b1e-4e6b7138fd16/0/1

and here

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/desnews1/id/170711

He then looked up at both the George D Watt Papers, and the Deseret News article of 3 April 1852 referred to in footnote 9 and it was not clear to him that either of these sources support the claim that President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would have all the privileges and more enjoyed by other church members. I didn’t read all of the original sources, but the parts that I did read certainly seemed to imply/suggest that contrary to what is implied by footnote 9, the weight of President Young’s views were not supportive of black church members eventually receiving the full blessings of membership. This then led my son to conclude that the essay was not a completely reliable source of information.

What are your views on footnote 9? Do the original sources, when taken as a whole, support the idea that President Young was of the view that one day blacks would receive all the blessings of church membership?

 

 

[JohnsonJones]

21 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm Asian.  We don't take it easy on our young'uns.  Ain't got no time for that.  They're old enough to do lots of damage.

This is an interesting thing to note.  In regards to Asians and LDS history...or on an even greater scale...US history, the whitewashing is FAR greater if one wants to call it that.

To ease this rather than sound antagonistic (which I wouldn't be, but religion can be a touchy thing), let's look at Asian's in US history.

African-American's like to claim they were persecuted and have had it rough.  This is absolutely true.  However, their ideas and claims of being the most persecuted is hypocritical when they ignore that there are smaller minorities that have been persecuted just as badly if not worse.

Asian-Americans have been rounded up and put into concentration camps less than 100 years ago.  Some of those that approved of this and even supported this were African Americans who, by the way, were NOT slaves at the time.  The closest comparison would be the Jewish work camps created in Nazi Germany (note, it is with the Work Camps, NOT the Death Camps as those were many degrees worse than anything the US created) or the Russian Gulags that were more humane in South Russia (as opposed to the OTHER Gulags which were far more severe).  For all intents and purposes, this was a Concentration Camp.  They also had what they had stripped away and taken from them (some think this was one of the big reasons that they were also gathered up, as a property grab in California and Hawaii).

After that, even in many areas, they were forbidden from possessing land, the discrimination against people of color was also adhered to towards them, and they were forbidden from holding office in some areas.  The laws regarding property were more restrictive towards Asians than African Americans for decades after World War two in several states.

Today, Asian Americans are considered an "ideal" race and thus are allowed to be discriminated against when the law protects other races from discrimination.  Asians are targeted at times by African American crime rings.  They are not allowed into Universities and colleges (especially "elite" ivy league universities and colleges) unless they have grades, scores, and extracurricular activities that EXCEED ALL OTHER groups.  They have to do better than anyone else just to go to college.  This has been highlighted recently in several lawsuits.

As I said, it is just the tip of the iceberg, but shows that Asians actually may be one of the more discriminated groups in the US...simply because it is LEGAL to discriminate against them in more instances than any other group. 

Asians are SEEN (it is the stereotype, so I do not know if this is true) to be more forgiving and not wanting to aggressively speak out against these things as the African Americans have and thus instead of protest, will typically work harder and try harder to succeed in some instances.  Hence, they are seen as happy with this lot and the progress to stop the discrimination is slower in some regards.  Yet, they are one of the smallest minority groups in the US and discrimination is more blatant against them in many instances.

Bringing this full circle...

Just like African Americans like to cite and bring up their own history in the US (which I think is perfectly valid and probably a good thing) but hypocritically tend to put down, slander, or even blatantly IGNORE any other minority group and their history in the US.  Asians are the most blatantly ignored in this, but we also have the Mestizos, the Native Americans, and others.

In this light, we had this article on African-Americans and the Church.  I really think it is a nice gesture and a good gesture.  Nice article. 

Now...how many of you know the history of Asians in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

A little better known...how about the History of Native Americans and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The biggest thing that people bring to light in regards to African Americans (or blacks in general) is the Priesthood Ban, and for that reason sometimes focus on Blacks and the History of the Church.  I find that acceptable...but even while we remember that one minority, at times we forget all the others to the exclusion of the Blacks.

Edited February 28, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

This question is particulary directed at @Just_A_Guy and @Suzie but of course everyone is welcome to assist. I've been meaning to ask this since last December but my procrastination skills needed a bit of a workout. 

Last December, my son was looking into the essay on Race and the Priesthood. One sentence within the essay says :  At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.9

He looked up footnote 9 which says

9. Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and Feb. 5, 1852, George D. Watt Papers, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, transcribed from Pitman shorthand by LaJean Purcell Carruth; “To the Saints,” Deseret News, April 3, 1852, 42.

These sources can be viewed here  

https://catalog.lds.org/assets/85e62ed8-dca0-4860-8b1e-4e6b7138fd16/0/1

and here

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/desnews1/id/170711

He then looked up at both the George D Watt Papers, and the Deseret News article of 3 April 1852 referred to in footnote 9 and it was not clear to him that either of these sources support the claim that President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would have all the privileges and more enjoyed by other church members. I didn’t read all of the original sources, but the parts that I did read certainly seemed to imply/suggest that contrary to what is implied by footnote 9, the weight of President Young’s views were not supportive of black church members eventually receiving the full blessings of membership. This then led my son to conclude that the essay was not a completely reliable source of information.

What are your views on footnote 9? Do the original sources, when taken as a whole, support the idea that President Young was of the view that one day blacks would receive all the blessings of church membership?

 

 

The first link isn’t playing nice with my iPhone; but in the second—the money quote is in the sixth paragraph:  

“. . . they cannot wash away God’s mark; yet, the Canaanite [i.e. descendant of Cain, as Young considered blacks to be] may believe the Gospel, repent, and be baptized, and receive the spirit of the Lord, and if he continue faithful, until Abel’s race is satisfied with his blessings, then may the race of Cain receive a fullness of the priesthood, and become satisfied with blessings, and the two become as one again, when Cain has paid the uttermost farthing”.

Young did anticipate blacks eventually receiving the priesthood; he just thought it couldn’t happen until Abel had been resurrected and had seed who could bear the priesthood.  In other words, Young thought it could only happen in the Millennium.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Just_A_Guy