For the past 2 weeks, my 8 and 10 year old daughters were both taught in Sunday School that blacks were descendants of Cain, and that’s why they didn’t get the priesthood until 1978.
In celebration of this momentous event in our family 
, I’m gonna soon do a podcast on Mormons, Blacks and Racism.
In my preparations, I found a great article/history on the subject. For those interested, check it out here.
Also, if anyone has ideas, or questions for the podcast, please let me know.
Stay tuned for the podcast.
John Dehlin
Look forward to it. BTW, does anyone still say “negroes” nowadays? And commiserations about your daughters’ exposure to such rubbish.
Man, what ward are you in? Seems like somebody is stuck in the 60s.
John, I’m looking forward to it.
I’m hoping that it includes an interview with Darrick Evenson…and someone less accepting of the history…whoever that is?
In Darrick’s “Black Mormons and the Priesthood-ban” he’s pretty clear about the ban being doctrine and inspired, and apologizes with the following:
Interesting take. Not really what I expected though…but as a “non-elect” I guess I’m just acting/thinking as expected by revelation.
Darrick Evenson is insane. He’s been posting rubbish on the internet since the mid to early 90’s. Ignore him.
I’m dreaming of an Armand Mauss podcast…
Then I withdraw my request…we don’t need more insanity!
Have you guys read Darrick’s article I linked to? It’s not perfect, but one of the best things I’ve ever read on the subject.
Give the entire article a read, and then tell me if you don’t think it’s 95% really good.
John,
Darrick’s article is a long one and I took a quick look through it. The photo of Marcus Martins caught my eye. As his photo is co-located with Helvecio Martins … is it safe to assume that Marcus is his son ?
As you plan your podcast, will you be focusing on Black/White issues or will you be including discussions on general race issues ? Who will you be interviewing / conversing with on your podcast ?
From my perspective, there have been plenty of articles and symposia on Black / White issues. I would be interested in hearing about how we intergrate various ethnicities in the church. My area has congregations that are attended predominantly by members of mixed ethnicities (few of whom could be categorized simply as either “Black” or “White”). I think that the church (in the US at least) is headed into that direction and would find it interesting to see how, for example, mixed ethnic marriages are viewed in the 21st century LDS church. I’ve also heard a few people at church make comments about how the Q of 12 is exclusively white … and asking where are the Lamanites ? I think that the question of non-Whites (not just Blacks) not being selected for the higher levels of leadership is another issue the church faces.
Thinking a bit …. I would be interesting to hear Marcus Martins on the podcast. He has the unique experience of living through much of the history of Black / White issues in the the church and currently teaches in Hawaii. Looking forward to the podcast.
“Anne Hutchinson”
Hey Anne!
Let me know if you can contact Marcus. I’d love to interview him.
Yes…he is Helvecio’s son.
I’ll do my best to discuss some of the things you’ve requested. I’ve put in a request to Armand Mauss–and he’s super qualified to respond to those questions specifically…so we shall see!!!
John
John, lots of great information there. I love the photos and will spend more time in the details. At the moment, my favorite part is this:
Eldridge Cleaver of the Black Panthers! Even cooler than Authur “Killer” Kane of the New York Dolls! I’d like to hear this story.
Okay, that Darrick article is just plain nuts. Nuts, nuts, nuts. One only has to read Mark E. Peterson or Brigham Young to be aware that the LDS church did once teach that people of European descent were superior to people of African descent. And quite frankly, Joseph Smith’s progressive ideas about race were lost with him. And I just can’t see any reading of the Curse of Cain theory as free of ideas of racial superiority or inferiority.
Joseph was right; Brigham was wrong (or maybe deeply afraid of becoming embroiled in the mess leading up to the Civil War); and it took us more than a hundred years to straighten the mess out. But we did straighten it out. That’s the beauty of modern revelation–conversations about this issue can go like this:
“Hey, don’t you Mormons believe that African Americans are inferior?”
“Why, no, we do not.”
“But I read this book where one of your leaders said you did.”
“Well, it must have been a pretty old book. We believed that once, but God told us we were wrong. God does that, you know–He speaks to us through prophets and personal revelation. Hey, would you like to talk to some missionaries about personal revelation?”
“Why, yes, I would…”
(Obviously, that’s an idealized version of the conversation–one would probably have to show the questioner a cool Frieburg copy of the Book of Mormon to really get them to talk to the missionaries).
Well Serenity Valley, you must be “non-elect” too. Welcome to the club!
Yeah…there’s clearly some uncomfortable apolgetics in there (for me), but there’s a lot of good info/candor (I felt), especially coming from what appeard to be a true-believer.
It turns out that the author has apparently left the church, however…..I’m sure he’d write it differently now. To see how his activity/story ends, go here and then search for “Subject: Darrick Evenson”.
I loved the story about Joseph Smith and the horse. I enjoyed the information about the Brazil temple, and how 80% of the ordained priesthood holders (pre-ban) in Brazil turned out to have black in their blood once they started doing geneology….and how the revelation came that very same year.
I did wish the racist quotes from GA’s had been included….to show more balance/candor…but again, from someone claiming to be devout, it seemed pretty thorough, and pretty bold (to me).
Anyway….fun stuff.
Just clicked-through to “Subject: Darrick Evenson” …Wow, that’s some serious Cog-Dis boomerang effect.
Darrick is an odd duck, all right. Kind of a sad person. But some of his information on this topic isn’t easily available elsewhere.
One thing I’ve found very interesting is a brief mention in _Lies my Teacher Told Me_, which I’m currently reading. In a footnote we read, “The foremost reason why white Missourians drove the Mormons out of Missouri and into Illinois in the 1830’s was the suspicion that they were not “sound” on slavery. Indeed they were not: Mormons admitted black males to the priesthood and invited free Negroes to join them in Missouri. In response to this pressure, Mormons not only fled Missouri but changed their attitudes and policies to resemble those of most white Americans in the 1840s, concluding that blacks were inferior and should not become full members.” Loewen, the author, cites these books as sources:
_Kingdom of the Saints_, Ray West Jr.
_The Arrogance of Faith_, Forrest G. Wood
_Saints, Slaves, and Blacks_, Newell Bringhurst
I hope you will discuss Mormon racism from the 50’s. For example:
Also the story of J. Reuben Clark visiting the LDS hospital to make sure that Negro blood was segregated to protect the purity of the blood streams. (Elder Statesman, by D. Michael Quinn page 350)
The classic quote is the early discourse by president John Taylor that the explained that the seed of Cane (Negros) was allowed to survive the flood so that Satan could have representation on the earth. (Gospel Kingdom, Taylor, page 103)
Somehow all this just went away after 1978? No chance!
Should be an interesting podcast!
Tom
sorry, ment to block quote not bold….
tom
Tom,
Not meaning to be a nag, but in the part of the US that RT and I live in, “Negro” is kind of a bad word. Please, to spare my oversensibilities, use “black” or “african american” when you aren’t actually quoting…
I agree with you wholeheartedly, by the way; our institutionalized racism during the 19th and 20th centuries needs to be recognized and aired out. Otherwise, we’ll never really get rid of it.
SV
We must have our wires crossed. Sorry. “Negro” is not my word. It’s one of the words used by Mormon leaders such as Mark E. Peterson, Bruce R. McConkie, Gordon B. Hinckley, and other Mormon hierarchy. It’s still being used today by these same leaders in books currently published and distributed by Deseret Book.
And I agree that It’s offensive.
Tom
Can you provide an example of President Hinckley using it in a book recently?
I wouldn’t be surprised, given his age and the era he grew up in. On the other hand, I think he’s too sensitive to do such a thing, hence my request for documentation.
Tom,
Yes, I understood that most of the uses of the word in your original comment were quotations; I’m just asking that through the rest of the thread, everyone be careful not to use the term in any other context, including retelling of anecdotal information. Clearly, you understand, I understand, but there are plenty of folks in the intermountain west who aren’t aware of the word’s negative connotations (like the editors at Deseret Book, apparently); I just want to, like, spread the word.
Thank you, by the way. I hope I made it clear that I wasn’t attacking you, but I’m afraid I might not have. It’s so hard to communicate intention in this medium!
Good heavens, you found it in a current Deseret Book publication? I’m appalled.
SV
Yea, Gospel Kingdom by John Taylor was bound in leather and given to every church employee for Christmas within the last ten years, and a second leather binding was printed by Deseret Book and given to it’s managers. There is quite a laundry list of books currently being printed and distributed by Deseret Book with ongoing racist slurs, pronouncements and denigrations. Mormon Doctrine is of course at the top of the list. Maybe nobody reads these books at corporate before they simply reprint them decade after decade.
Tom
Either that, or they’re waaaaayyyy behind on the acceptable language. That’s not outside the realm of possibility, given the relative homogeneity of Utah’s population.
SV
Interesting. So is “Politically Correct” a big thing in San Francisco still? I don’t hear too much discussion of it here in American Fork. (I know, I know… Utah County. ha! ha!) But I found it interesting to see you bristle so much at the language. I found the United Negro College Fund of San Francisco on-line and I’m wondering if your sensitivity to the word is just a white thing, a YUPY twenty-something thing or what??. (not meant to offend. Just my inability to find the appropriate, inoffensive language on the topic) personally I find the terms Black and African American marginalizing as well and I’ve tried to remove them from my everyday vocabulary. (My poor attempt to correct my inherited Mormon racism)
Best
Tom (recovering blue collar red neck)
The United Negro College Fund’s name is partly a historical relic, but also partly a reflection of the fact that people are allowed to use terms to describe themselves that they would never let outsiders use. For a fascinating, insightful discussion of the parallel evolution of a closely related word, see this book.
Tom,
I don’t think it’s a pc thing. It’s more that RT and I live in a relatively integrated community, in which everyone of pretty much all ages tries to avoid using ethnic and socioeconomic descriptors which might be offensive to the people being described. One doesn’t want to make one’s neighbors uncomfortable, after all; it would make for akward social situations.
A number of African American friends have told me that they feel the term “negro” is offensive; in general, the terms “African-American” and “black” are prefered. As RT says, the name of the United Negro College Fund is a historical relic, much like the name of the NAACP; both groups were also founded by African-Americans, which makes a difference. I’ll call myself all kinds of things that no-one else gets to call me.:)
In fact, I have never heard an African American use either the word “negro” or the word “colored” self-referentially. I have heard them use “black” and “African American”, pretty much interchangeably.
I suppose that, as a Latter-day Saint in a gentile city, I’m predisposed to accepting others’ self-definitions. (That’s my weak attempt at humor).
I think the Church is between a rock and a hard-place. They can a) quit publishing “classic” mormon books. b) They can publish them in their original “offensive” form. c) They can edit them.
I’d expect howls from the usual crowd about “rewriting history” with option c.
In any case, I’m still waiting for Tom to provide an example of PResident Hinckley using the word recently. I don’t think it fair to criticize him for using it when it was the acceptable term to do so, but since he said that “It’s still being used today by these same leaders in books currently published and distributed by Deseret Book.” and that other than president Hinckley, the authors are dead, the burden of proof is on tom to demonstrate Hinckley’s use of the term.
SV and RT
Interesting stuff! Thanks for the book recommendation. (Though I’ll have to put a plain brown wrapper around the cover) Curt Bench showed me a book that someone had recently returned. It was The Measure of Our Hearts by Marvin Ashton but when you opened the book someone had cut the origianal book out and glued in a book entitled You Don’t Have to be Gay. I think I have a Joseph Fielding McConkie book I can rip the cover from and glue it around this book so when it comes so I can read it at church.
Getting back on topic. So what do we call ourselves. Are we Mormon? I know the church durring the Olympics didn’t want people calling us Mormon. I don’t mind being called Mormon. Latter-day Saint is nice but “Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” seems a bit much if not out-right outragious. Heck, the names of the Priesthoods were changed for ease and to reduce the number times in which we used the saviors name Right??
Tom
Ben
Sorry. I’ve been pondering your word “recently.” I gues that your burden of proof is in the final deffinition of that word or to prove me wrong… (an old lazy Mormon apologist trick. Sorry)
Tom
Tom,
Regarding the “Mormon” vs. “Latter-day Saint” vs. “Really Long Name For Us” controversy, I personally don’t mind being a Mormon when I’m discussing religion in a vague or a conceptual way. However, when someone asks about my actual religious affiliation, I actually tell them I’m LDS, because there are so many groups with a legitimate claim to being called Mormon.
I didn’t know about the priesthood thing, but you’ve got me curious. What were the priesthoods called originally?
In your own terms, “…still being used ***today*** by these same leaders in books ***currently*** published and distributed by Deseret Book.”
So, please find me *any* example of Gordon Hinckley using the term regardless of the time period (though preferably in the last 20 years or so), since you made the charge.
I think you’re painting with too broad a brush, hence my request that you back it up with actual data.
Wow. I totally derailed the conversation here. Sorry, John!
Ben
How about a truce. I’ll give up Hinckley if you give up the thread? FAIR?
SV
The Holy Preisthood after the Order of the Son of God. (I think the reference is D&C 107:3)
I like “Mormon” because I like being linked to the wider use of the term. I find a sort of kinship with fundimentalists, Strangites, Community of Christ, new-Mos old-Mos su-Mo’s, no-mo-Mos and the just about anything Mo.
I think this is an interesting discussion. Thanks
Tom
Tom,
I like your Mormon typology. Particularly the hyphenated part.
Good enough
White flag raised.
That’s a lie. I am mormon, and we AREN’T racist. Just ask the people in Africa.
Anonymous,
I’m a Mormon, an active Latter-day Saint. I know we’re not racist nowadays, and I don’t think our church was ever racist because we were bad people… it was racist because we just didn’t understand that we were doing something wrong. That’s why there were almost no Mormons in Africa 35 years ago, and there are a decent number of Saints there today. And I say, “Yay, continuing revelation!”
I take it that you didn’t know LDSLF is an LDS site?
I found a few older uses of the term by Hinckley.
1. December 1969 First Presidency statement regarding blacks and the priesthood (Hinckley worked on formulating the statement)
2. 1947 book What of the Mormons? (the second half of which was later republished as Truth Restored):
Joseph Smith “issued a statement of his views on government which attracted the attention of many. Among other things he advocated that the government solve the slave problem by purchasing the negroes, thus freeing the slaves and compensating their owners—a policy which if followed might have saved the treasure and lives later sacrificed in the Civil War.”
We were lucky to live in a racially diverse neighborhood when my kids were little. The family next door adopted three black children, a Shoshone Indian boy, and a child from Ecuador. Then the lady across the street was married to a Tongan guy and they had eight kids.
So my kids grew up color blind. When Sarah was four years old, Keoke and Tarah, twins, were her best friends. They all had brown hair and eyes. Sarah came in one day and said, “Mom, me and Keoke and Tawah wish we weren’t bwown. We wish we looked like Bawbie.”
The Miss America of that year was black, so I sat those kids down and we watched it together.
I must have taped it. I don’t know. I’ve shared that story a lot because I thought it was funny that Sarah thought she was black and I never corrected her. I don’t know when she figured it out, we’ve never discussed it.
I’m just discovering your site, John. And my computer doesn’t do those podcasts very well.
I have said in Sunday School that I felt those policies were racist and boy did I take crap for it. If I were in your ward, I would rip the face off anybody who said that. But our ward is pretty good because of those families. Although my friend tells me her kids were called the N word at school.
Serenity, I am where you are coming from. That is what I figured out, too, I think Brigham Young was between a rock and a hard place. That’s what I said in Sunday School. I didn’t grow up color blind, I remember being scared to death of black people, because in Long Beach and Las Vegas, they could get really mean. I guess they had to.
My friend, who had those children, sat silent one Sunday in church while people went on about black people. I don’t remember the context, I just remember speaking up.
And again I say, if I ever chose to leave the church, it would be because of the assholes, not the doctrine.
I read that article and I think it’s okay. I didn’t see anything awful in it. In fact, I agree with his premise that the church will never disavow the racist policies because it seems like it’s criticizing a prophet. I don’t agree with that, because I don’t expect them to be perfect. I expect them to make mistakes. They’re men.
But the other night we had a general authority speak in our Stake Conference and he said something I found interesting, “we are called general authorities because we speak to the generality and not the exception.” In general, these are good men, called of God who do the best they can. In the exception, each has faults. Which do we focus on and what does that say about us?
This is Darrick Evenson. I left the LDS Church and joined the Baha’i Faith. Why? NOT because of the Curse of Cain doctrine. Do I believe that blacks are descendants of Cain? No. Brigham Young got that wrong. I DO believe they are descendants of Canaan, and it is the Canaanite (not Cainite) lineage that is cursed as per the Priesthood. Why did I leave the Church and join the Baha’i Faith? Simple. Joseph Smith prophesied of Baha’u'llah:
www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/1891.html
Am I “insane”? No, Mormon culture is INSANE, and hypocritical! Good bye and good ridance!
p.s. If you would like to read all about the Curse of Cain/Priesthood-ban legacy then go to:
www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html
41 - How about we agree that the Priesthood restriction applies to anyone non-Levitical and settle it there? All that Canaan mumbo jumbo is just that.
John–your children just got the “curse of Canaan” lesson because somebody who publishes supplementary lessons for Gospel Doctrine teachers on Meridian Magazine decided he ought to include his insights on what Noah’s curse meant. His article was extremely speculative. I was concerned enough about it that I reported it not only to the editors at Meridian but to a G.A. But that lesson supplement has not been the only minefield. Three lessons have invited past folklore to reveal itself again. The lesson on “Thou Wast Chosen Before Thou Wast Born” got discussions going all over about valiancy in the pre-existence; the one on Noah, as I mentioned, got the curse crap revived, and the lesson on Joseph of Egypt got a fully unsubstantiated declaration that Asenath (Joseph’s wife) was a Semite. I believe that Dallin Oaks hit all of those points by implication in his powerful sermon Sunday Morning of April Conference. And President Hinckley’s words at the priesthood session should be the great kick in the pants we need to get all books off the shelves which violate that mandate to cease racial slurs or discrimination. We cannot heed those words and still tolerate Bruce R. McConkie’s idea that God has a caste system. _Mormon Doctrine_ and any other book which denigrates others based on the color of their skin now have been given the prophetic boot.
I didn’t take the time to read through all of the posts here, but if it hasn’t already been referenced to; check out this site: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_part2.htm.
That is just one section of at least 8 long pages of information on this very subject. I hadn’t realized how deep this issues had been, though, I don’t really see any current examples of these older and misguided notions.