Black Pete, as he was known, was born in 1775 in western Pennsylvania.  (Staker speculates that his last name may have been Carroll, but it is unclear.)  Pete’s owner John Kerr stipulated that Pete would be freed 10 years after Kerr’s death, so Pete was freed at the age of 29.  Pete continued to work for the Kerrs, as well as the Carrel family.  The two families later moved to Ohio (near Kirtland), and Pete moved with them.  About 1820, Black Pete associated with Sidney Rigdon and the Reformed Baptist movement.

It is believed that Black Pete’s mother Kino came from the Slave Coast of Africa, which includes the modern day countries of Guinea, Mali, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Liberia, The Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau.  Staker says she was probably a Muslim, and probably was brought to America in the 1750s-1760s time frame.  Pete was immersed  in many of these ecstatic religious experiences of the time.

Slaves in America developed their own kind of religious worship by combining elements of Muslim worship, Christianity, and Native American influences.  Slaves often practiced ecstatic religious expressions such as speaking in tongues and dancing, and other expressions, sometimes known as the “slave shout.”  Many of these practices became part of the Second Great Awakening in America and were adopted by white communities as well, including Methodist and later Mormon religious services.

In late October 1830, Joseph Smith received a revelation that Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Parley Pratt, and Ziba Peterson were to go on a mission.  They met Sidney Rigdon in Mentor, Ohio; Rigdon initially was quite unreceptive to the missionaries message.  The missionaries continued on to Kirtland, and found that they were much more successful there.  One of the first converts in Kirtland was the Morley family, and this led to many other baptisms in Kirtland.  Rigdon came to the Morley farm to perform a wedding on November 4, and was a bit more receptive to the missionaries.  On November 8, Sidney and his wife Phoebe were baptized, and Sidney abandoned his role as a minister for the Baptist Church.

The missionaries soon headed south to Cincinnati, leaving the early church members with no real leadership. Staker discusses how Black Pete was one of the citizens that filled the vacuum on pages 64-65.

Black Pete had lived on the Whitney property during their communal experiment and may have continued to do so for a time.  He became a central figure in the new religious community by early December.  The typical pattern for slaves’ conversion to various Christian congregations was through “a radical encounter with spiritual beings” as they sought divine manifestations from the spiritual world.⁸⁵ It seems probable that Black Pete, as a “revelator” in the new religious community, would have built on the ecstatic religious world he knew well.  Because he left no written records, his beliefs and role in the movement can be glimpsed only through the eyes of others as his involvement intensified that winter.

Short lists of those who were ordained and commissioned to preach after their baptism never included Black Pete.  However, the men who wrote about their baptisms note they were also ordained and commissioned as part of their conversion process, and many of the early converts were not included in lists of commissioned preachers, leaving Black Pete’s authority to preach and baptize uncertain.  As part of Kirtland’s ecstatic religious experiences, a number of the men received “letters” that fell from heaven which were copied onto paper before the original letter disappeared.  Black Pete was among those who received one of these letters, his delivered by a black angel.  Because the letters were apparently divine commissions to travel the countryside and preaching and baptizing and because Black Pete was among those who went about the country preaching, it is likely he also performed baptisms during January of 1831.  Careful studies of the relationship between black members and priesthood ordination confirm that some early black members were ordained to the priesthood well after Black Pete’s conversion.⁸⁶ Although the beginning date for a priesthood ban on black members is not firmly established, it is clear that during Black Pete’s period of involvement in early Latter-day Saint history, there were no priesthood restrictions on black members.  Black Pete may well have acted in his role as Book of Mormon preacher in an authorized capacity.  Nevertheless, the newly founded religious movement in Ohio quickly looked to Black Pete for direction; and as this small Church of Christ spread, it seemed to take on a life of its own.

Following his conversion to Mormonism, Staker notes that Pete went with some missionaries (probably Levi Hancock, Edson Fuller, and Heman Bassett) to the shores of Lake Erie in Astabula County.  On February 5, 1831, the Ashtabula Journal “identified Black Pete as a leader in this new religion, suggesting that the group of young men recognized him as their chief source of influence.”  The footnote references “The Golden Bible or the Book of Mormon,” Ashtabula Journal, 3, no. 10 (February 5, 1831):  Levi Hancock in later years became a close friend of black Latter-day Saint Elijah Abel and took special note of blacks in his writings.

In chapter 8, Staker describes many examples of ecstatic religious experiences in the “Mormonite” community in Kirtland.  Of course, may members and non-members were uneasy about the practices.  Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge went to New York to meet Joseph Smith, arriving in January 1831.  Joseph quickly sent John Whitmer to preside over the branch.  The missionaries returned in March 1831 and the practices were perceived as “unusual.”  Whitmer wrote years later that (quoting from page 94) ‘a false spirit misled members and that “the devil blinded the eyes of some good and honest disciples.”‘⁶ Staker notes that “Whitmer was apparently unable to resolve concerns about enthusiasm”.

Joseph soon left New York and arrived in Kirtland in February.  Church members looked to him for direction.  Staker notes on page 103,

Black Pete and his associates were forbidden to preach and baptize on the basis of letters from heaven: “It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church” (D&C 42:11).

It is known that Joseph Smith was aware of Black Pete.  On page 105, Staker writes,

Some of these accounts of Morley family meetings subtly expressed discomfort that a black man would be in a familiar relationship with white women.  ”White women would chase him [Black Pete] about,” recalled Reuben Harmon.¹⁰ The interest apparently went both ways as Lovina Williams, Frederick G. Williams’s youngest daughter, became the object of Black Pete’s affections.  She turned fourteen a month before the missionaries arrived from New York.  According to W. R. Hine, “Black Pete claimed to receive a revelation to marry her.”  Hine also recalled that D. P. Hurlbut “before he left the Mormons” likewise “courted Dr. Williams’ beautiful daughter, and told her he had a revelation to marry her; she told him when she received a revelation they would be married.  Everybody about Kirtland believed he had left the Mormons because she refused him.”¹¹ Henry Carroll claimed that Black Pete sought a revelation from Joseph Smith after his arrival in Kirtland “and wanted to marry a white woman.  Jo Smith said he could get no revelations for him to.  Pete claimed he [Black Pete] did.”¹² Three years later, Lovina married Burr Riggs, one of Black Pete’s close associates, on November 19, 1834.

Concerning Black Pete, Staker concludes with this on page 188:

Black Pete’s presence in the Mormonite community raised numerous other questions about gifts of the Spirit and discerning the things of God that provided a revelatory response.  These revelations continue to provide spiritual insight and answer additional questions within the Latter-day Saint tradition today.  After modern revelation had completely transformed the Morley family in Kirtland, Black Pete disappeared from the community sometime between 1831 and 1834.  On March 3, 1837 Joseph Smith, Sr., father of the Prophet, ordained a former slave, Elijah Abel, an elder.⁶⁹  Abel continued to play a role in the community for the rest of the centure and was probably its best-known black Latter-day Saint.  Other black Latter-day Saints also contributed to the early development of the Restoration.  However, it seems that none of them had as much influence on the early development of the movement as Black Pete.

I am amazed at the large role Staker puts on Black Pete.  How about you?  Were you aware that the first black Mormon was baptized within the first 7 months of the founding of the church? Do you think Staker presents evidence that Pete held the priesthood?

In 1835  David Patten was called  to be one of the original 12 apostles.  Patten was known as “Captain FearNot”.  Just 3 years after being called to be an apostle, he was killed in the Battle of Crooked River in Missouri while trying to recover some Mormons captured by a Missouri mob.

A biography of Patten written in 1900 referenced a letter written between two apostles: Abraham Smoot and Joseph F. Smith (future president of the church).  Smith had heard that Patten claimed to have met Cain, and apparently Smith had written to Smoot asking about this experience.  As the letter states, David Patten was on his way to Smoot’s house.  Smoot relates that Patten said,

[I] met with a very remarkable personage who had represented himself as being Cain who had murdered his brother, Abel … I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me … for about two miles.  His head was even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle.  He wore no clothing but was covered with hair.  His skin was very dark … he [said] that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth … He said that he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death … but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men … I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence and he immediately departed out of my sight. [Cited in Lycurgus A. Wilson, The Life of David Patten, the First Apostolic Martyr (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1900) 45-47.  Smoot's 1893 letter was to future Church President Joseph F. Smith.]

Could Cain really be alive after a few thousand years?  Apparently, the apostles believed the tale.  Smith brought the tale to the apostles, and Elder Abraham Cannon wrote  that “he had always entertained the idea that Cain was dead.”  Eliza R. Snow wrote a poem discussing the incident in 1884.

As seen by David Patten, he was dark
When pointing at his face of glossy jet
Cain said, “You see the curse is on me yet.”
The first of murderers, now he fills his post
And reigns as king o’er all the murd’rous host.

Bowman’s essay documents several tales where Cain appeared to anonymous apostles, bishops, missionaries, and stake presidents who were seeking to destroy the church of God.  President Spencer W. Kimball discussed Patten’s account in Miracle of Forgiveness.  Following the 1978 revelation, Bowman states that there have been changes in this legend.  From page 123 of the book,

There is evidence that since the 1978 revocation of its ban on black priesthood holders, there have been social and cultural transitions in the Church that may be the very reason the monstrous image of Cain has been transformed to something else.  No longer an arche-typical racial slur, Bigfoot is more of a curiosity of nature that lacks the weight of nineteenth-century Mormon demonology.  Though the stories seldom do little to rehabilitate Cain’s image in that he is still hostile, the emphasis of the legend has shifted.  The older stories, from Patten’s own experience through the third quarter of the twentieth century….Now Cain rarely speaks.  Now his specific mission to destroy the church has dissolved into the general hostility that one would expect from a wild animal.

In 1980, Bigfoot made some appearances in Utah, documented in the Ogden Standard-Examiner.  From page 125,

On Sunday afternoon, February 3, 1980, a South Weber high school student named Pauline Markham glanced out of her kitchen window and saw what she described as “a big, black creature” climbing down a mountain ridge a half-mile away.  Markham, a Mormon, reported that she simply put her drinking glass down and “went to church”.  Early the next morning, her cousin, Ronald Smith, saw a “big dark figure” in his field.  He fled into the house, leaving an agitated horse in the pasure. The next morning, odd tracks in the show had been trampled by hoof prints.  The story was pursued by an Ogden Standard-Examiner reporter, Jay Barker, who claimed he had also personally encountered Bigfoot three years earlier.  At this point in 1980, none of the witnesses–Markham, who is clearly identified as a practicing Mormon, or Barker, who has devoted a great deal of investigation to the events–seem to have associated Bigfoot with Cain.

..

Another man, Sterling Gardner, compared what he believed to gbe the stench of Bigfoot that agitated his dogs to that of a skunk.  However, ten years after the fact, local historian Lee D. Bell noted that South Weber citizens had begun associating these local sightings of Bigfoot with Cain.  Twenty-three years later, the Deseret News pinpointed this event as the genesis of the Bigfoot/Cain idea.”

Bowman goes on to discusses other Boy Scout stories, seminary teacher stories, and even the Three Nephite legends as popular urban myths. What do you make of these stories of Cain becoming Bigfoot?

Douglas A. Wallace, a Mormon High Priest and Vancouver, Washington, attorney was one such individual.  In April 1976, Wallace, acting on his own, ordained a black man, Larry Lester, to the Mormon priesthood.  While Wallace conceeded that he was “stepping outside the bounds of the church” in his action, he said that he hoped that it would “force the issue” of black priesthood denial before the Mormon General Conference meeting in Salt Lake City the following week.⁴⁰ At the conference Wallace tried to confront Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball with his complaints.  However, Wallace and his two companions were swiftly ejected from the Tabernacle.⁴¹ A few days later, Wallace was excommunicated from the church for “open and deliberate disobedience of the rules and regulations of the church in violation of the outlines of the church.”⁴² As for the ordination of Larry Lester, it was declared null and void by church officials in Salt Lake City.⁴³ That did not stop Wallace’s actions against the church.   Immediately following his excommunication, Wallace sought a rehearing on his ouster, and in October he tried once more to bring the black issue before Mormon General Conference.  Wallace’s latter action was deferred by a court order prohibiting him from attending Mormon church conferences.  Undaunted, Wallace then filed a counterclaim against the church asking for $200,000 in damages.⁴⁴ In April 1977, Wallace made a third attempt to appear at the Mormon General Conference in order to protest Mormon antiblack practices. Against, attorneys for the church obtained a temporary restraining order.⁴⁵ Wallace promised further protests and legal actions against the Mormon church.⁴⁶

Another militant Mormon dissident who directly confronted the church on the Mormon-black issue was Byron Marchant, a Latter-day Saint Boy Scout leader.  Marchant was the scoutmaster of the Mormon Boy Scout troop that was the focal point of the 1974 NAACP controversy over the eligibility of blacks for leadership positions in Mormon-sponsored troops.  Even though this issue was settled, Marchant continued to express his opposition to the general practice of Mormon priesthood denial.  Marchant did this by casting a dissenting vote against sustaining Spencer W. Kimball as church president during the Mormon General Conference in October 1977.  A few days later Marchant was excommunicated from the church for his conference behavior and open opposition to Mormon racial practices.⁴⁷ Despite his excommunication, Marchant staged another protest on Temple Square during the Mormon General Conference in April 1978.  Even though Marchant was arrested for trespassing on church property, he filed a civil suit against Spencer W. Kimball and promised to organize and stage a protest march on Temple Square during the next Mormon General Conference in October 1978.⁴⁸

I doubt these protests held a lot of sway with the leaders, but the timing of this last protest is interesting.  On June 8, 1978, the priesthood ban was officially lifted with what is now Official Declaration 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

There were practical problems in administering the ban.  Bringhurst notes on page 188,

In Hawaii, it was disclosed in 1932 that a man of African descent had been ordained to the priesthood and had, in fact, “presided for some time over a branch of the church until it was discovered he was a Negro instead of a dark-skinned Hawaiian.”⁶⁴ Four years later, Hawaii was again the scene of a similar problem. Two Mormon priesthood holders were found to be “one-eighth negro.”  This situation was further complicated because the two individuals had performed “some baptisms and other ordinances.”  They were apparently told to stop exercising their priesthood authority.  Apostle George Albert Smith was then sent to Hawaii to determine the number of people involved in the ordinances performed by these black priesthood holders and the action to be taken.⁶⁵ In 1947, the president of the New Zealand mission noted a similar problem where in “an instance or two…men with a trace of Negro blood were ordained to the priesthood.”  He asked church leaders what should be done about these individuals and whether a person with “colored blood in his veins may received the Priesthood.”  The New Zealand mission president was told that no one “known to have Negro blood in his veins…should be ordained to the priesthood.”  Also those Mormons of African descent mistakenly ordained were “instructed not to attempt to use the Prieshood in any other ordinations.”⁶⁶ A year later, another facet of the Mormon-black issue in the South Pacific came up in conjunction with the problem of “deciding who was to be admitted” into the Hawaiian temple from that region’s “melting pot population.”

The church had avoided actively teaching black people.  In 1946, a Nigerian man by the name of O.J. Umordak somehow discovered the church and asked for missionaries.  The church delayed action until 1959 when it sent some missionary tracts and a representative to Nigeria.  In 1963, the church decided to set up a mission there.  However, the Nigerian government learned about race restrictions and denied visas to the missionaries for the next 3 years.  Then civil war broke out in Nigeria, ending the missionary effort.  From page 190,

“Some five thousand [Nigerian people] applied for baptism” into Mormonism according to Apostle Hugh B. Brown.⁷⁴

Church missionary efforts in Brazil were very complicated.  From pages 190-191,

a 1947 Church First Presidency investigation which found “the races…badly mixed” because “no color line is drawn among the mass of people”  It concluded that “a great part of the population of Brazil is colored.”⁷⁶ Later this same year J. Reuben Clark, a member of the Church First Presidency, referred again to the Brazilian situation, noting that “it is very difficult if not impossible to tell who has negro blood and who has not.”  He admitted, “if we are baptizing Brazilians, we are almost cdertainly baptizing people of negro blood, and that if the Priesthood is conferred upon them, which no doubt it is, we are facing a very serious problem.”⁷⁷

…

The Brazilian situation took on added significance during the mid-1970s, when the church unveiled plans to build a new temple in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  The expected completion of the Brazilian Temple in the fall of 1978 brought to head the “major problem” and “often impossible” task of determining which Brazilian “Church members have black ancestry” and which do not.⁷⁹

It was certainly a combination of events that led to the momentous event.  Bringhurst notes that Joseph Freeman, Jr was the first black member to officially receive the priesthood following the 1978 revelation.  Comments?

Warner “William” McCary was NOT half-Native American, although he claimed to be Choctaw. His mother was an African American slave and his father was her white master, a carpenter born in Pennsylvania. McCary made up his Native American heritage and traveled around the country putting on shows as an “Indian”, claiming to be the lost son of Moshullah Tubbee, a great Choctaw chief. It was a scam to make money.

I found some more detailed information about William McCary from the book Saints, Slaves, and Blacks by Newell Bringhurst.  Following the Mormon exodus from Nauvoo in 1847, the saints traveled to Winter Quarters, Nebraska to start their journey to the west.  It is at this point in history that (from pages 84-86),

McCary had arrived in the Mormon Camp sometime during that bleak winter of 1846-1847.  At first, Brigham Young and other Church leaders welcomed or at least accepted McCary into their midst.  McCary, an accomplished musician, entertained the encamped Saints during the months of February and March 1847.²

However, by late March 1847, McCary fell from Mormon favor.  Young and others were apparently upset with McCary for using his powers as a musician and ventriloquist to claim supernatural powers of transmigration, that is, the ability to assume the “identity” of certain Old and New Testament peoples.  At a “meeting of the twelve and others” McCary exhibited “himself in Indian costume” and purported “to be Adam, the ancient of days.”  He “claimed to have an odd rib which he had discovered in his wife.”³ Then McCary “Showed his body to the company to see if he had a rib gone.”  At this same meeting, McCary also tried to pass himself off as the ancient Apostle Thomas.  He did this by throwing his voice and announcing that “God spoke unto him and called him Thomas.”⁴ Young and other church leaders were not impressed.  The expelled McCary from Winter Quarters, and Apostle Orson Hyde preached a sermon “against his doctrine.”⁵

Undaunted, McCary remained in or returned to the area around Winter Quarters and proceeded to set up his own rival Mormon group; drawing followers away from Brigham Young.⁶ Accordint to a July 1847 account, the the “negro prophet” exerted his influence by working “with a rod, like those of old.”⁷ By the fall of 1847, McCary’s religious practices took a new turn when the black Indian taught his own form of plural marriage of polygamy.⁸ McCary’s ritual involved a number of women,

seald to him in his way which was as follows, he had a house in which this ordinance was preformed his wife…was in the room at the time of the proformance no others was admitted the form of sealing was for the women to go to bed with him in the daytime as I am informed 3 diforant times by which they seald to the fullist extent.

These activities angered Brigham Young and his followers, particularly the relatives of McCary’s female disciples.  One irate Mormon threatened “to shoot” McCary for trying “to kiss his girls.”  But McCary, aware of the ruckus caused by the disclosure of his unorthodox practices, “made his way to Missouri on a fast trot.”⁹

The storm caused by William McCary, however had consequences far beyond the black Indian and his small following.  In the wake of McCary’s activities at least two Mormon leaders were willing to affirm that blacks could not hold the priesthood.  The earliest-known statement came from Apostle Parley P. Pratt in the spring of 1847.  Pratt maintained the “McCary had ‘got the blood of Ham in him which linege [sic] was cursed as regards [to] the priesthood.’”¹⁰  Brigham Young alluded to this same position during the fall of 1847 when he suggested that blacks in general were ineligible to participate in certain sacred temple ordinances.¹¹

It might be tempting to trace the priesthood ban to this particular episode.  Certainly it played a part, but Bringhurst argues on page 86,

black priesthood denial did not emerge simply as the result of William McCary’s bizarre activities.  A number of factors, complex and interrelated, caused Mormon leaders to deny blacks the priesthood.

The rest of the book discusses these complex factors.  I have to say this is an amazing book.  What do you make of William McCary?

During the Q&A session at the MHA meetings last year for the film Trouble in Zion, a few scholars took issue with the original narration that indicated that early Mormons in Missouri were abolitionists.  They said the Mormons weren’t in favor of slavery, but they weren’t abolitionists either.  Bringhurst expands on this topic.  Mormons became embroiled in controversy in 1833 when WW Phelps published as article called “Free People of Color” in the church’s newspaper, Evening and Millenial Star.  Phelps wrote about “the wonderful events of this age much is doing towards abolishing slavery and colonizing the blacks in Africa.”

Non-mormons in Missouri, a slave state, were already suspicious of the massive influx of Mormons, and this article was the last straw. Despite Phelps’ attempt to minimize the damage by printing the following day that Mormons “had nothing to say…as to slaves”, a mob destroyed the printing press and ordered Mormons out of Jackson County Missouri in 1833.

So while Mormons didn’t like slavery, they didn’t want to be associated with Abolitionists either. Abolitionists were seen as radicals back then.  Bringhurst notes that the Book of Mormon does not support slavery.  Alma 27:9 says “It is against the law of our brethren…that there should be any slaves among them.”

Many saints were from the north, where slavery was unpopular.  Yet Abolitionists were unpopular too. Mormons tried to straddle the fence, and Bringhurst states why Mormons and other church groups did not want to be associated with radical abolitionists on pages 20-21.

Mormon opposition to abolitionism was primarily motivated by a Latter-day Saint desire to avoid any and all identification with the abolitionist movement.  This desire, stemmed, in large part, from Mormonism’s presence in Kirtland, Ohio, on the Western Reserve.  This region was a hotbed of abolitionism during the 1830s.  Oberlin College, located near Kirtland, was the center for abolitionist actions through the Ohio Valley.³⁶ Such abolitionist activity made Ohio the focal point of more antiabolitionist violence than any other state in the Union.

Because of their close proximity to such violence, the Ohio-based Saints were particularly anxious to avoid the abolitionists.  They worried about the parallels that non-Mormons might draw between themselves and the abolitionists…

The Mormons, in avoiding and condemning the abolitionists, were like other northern-based church groups during the 1830s.  The official Mormon antiabolitionist resolution of August 1835 was similar to declarations of other northern-based church groups.  The Methodists in their 1836 national convention adopted a resolution asserting that their members had “no right, wish, or intention to interfere with the civil and political relation as it exists between master and slave in the slave-holding states of this Union.”⁴³ In a similar fashion, the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Catholics, in national meetings of their respective churches, avoided the issue of slavery and abolition.⁴⁴ Even the Quakers, who had earlier pushed for gradual elimination of slavery withdrew from active participation in all antislavery movements and condemned abolition in general.⁴⁵ Several interdenominational organizations, including the Bible, Home Missionary, and Tract Societies, also rejected involvement in the abolitionist movements.

So why were all these churches so opposed to abolition?  Bringhurst states on page 23,

Mormons rejected the abolitionist goals of immediate, uncompensated emancipation for all black slaves.  In addition, the abolitionist desire to absorb these emancipated blacks into the mainstream of society upset those Latter-day Saints obsessed with racial intermixture.⁶⁶ In contrast to these abolitionist goals, W.W. Phelps and other Mormons favored gradual compensated emancipation and colonization of the freed blacks abroad.

In a previous blog post about Joseph Smith’s Presidential Platform, I quoted from Michael Quinn’s book called The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power page 119,

“On the slavery question, he advocated compensated emancipation through the sale of public lands.  To cope with resulting social stress, he advocated the relocation of the several million freed slaves to Texas.  In keeping with the spirit of “Manifest Destiny” in the 1840s, he proposed annexation of Oregon and Texas and whatever parts of Canada wished to join the Union.  As a reflection of the Mormon expulsion from Missouri, Smith’s platform also advocated presidential intervention in civil disturbances within states.  As one author noted, this interventionist impulse ‘did not exist until the Civil War and Reconstruction.’”

What do you make of the Mormon position back then?

The September Six refer to a group of 6 intellectuals that were disciplined by the church in 1993.

1. Lynne Whitesides*
2. Paul Toscano
3. Maxine Hanks
4. Lavina Anderson
5. Michael Quinn
6. Avraham Gileadi**

*Five of the six were excommunicated with Lynne Whitesides being the exception–she was disfellowshipped.

**Of the six disciplined, only Avraham Gileadi was rebaptized. Lindholm notes in the Introduction,

A conservative biblical scholar, Gileadi consistently refused to speak to the press following his excommunication, and he remains the only member of the September Six to be rebaptized and admitted back into the fold.  In keeping with this precedent, Gileadi did not respond to my interview request for this volume.

Lindholm also interviews 3 others who have been disciplined by the church since 1991:

• Margaret Toscano,
• her sister Janice Merrill Allred, and
• Thomas Murphy.

For balance, Lindholm interviews Donald Jessee, former employee of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department.

I really liked the book.  My only mild criticism was the fact that it is apparent these interviews occurred several years ago, but the book is just coming out now.  For example, the author asked every guest if they believed Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet, rather than Thomas S. Monson.  I asked the publisher why some of the material seemed dated, and he said it took quite some time to get permission from all of the people.  The last interview took place in 2004.

The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications themselves) was learning about the Strengthening the Church Committee (SCMC).  I had never heard of it before.  In describing it, Lynne Whitesides said on page 6,

There is a Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.

Footnote 4 on page 181 further clarifies this.

According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the Strengthening Church Members Committee is a “clipping service” that “pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems.  That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.”  Quoted in “News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,” Sunstone 92 (November 1993): 69.  The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the Strengthening Church Members Committee when it stated, “This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics.  It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.”  Quoted in “News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,” Sunstone 88 (August 1992): 63.  Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.

Here is what Donald Jessee, former employee of LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department said when asked about the committee.  From page 217-220,

Donald:  It ‘s a committee that seeks information that, in time, if the proper action is taken, does just that–it can strengthen Church members through proper discipline.

Philip:  How so?  Many excommunicants have claimed that it collected files on them in preparation for potential disciplinary courts.

Donald:  They do it by caring about members of the Church.  Discipline is designed to help members who have gone astray.  The Church from its beginning has gathered anti-Mormon literature and derogatory or false information about the Church.  If the source of this information comes from Church members of record, then action is taken.  The Church must be aware of its critics and enemies.  Again, Church leaders must keep the Church morally clean and ethically straight.

Philip:  Should academics avoid publishing research if it could be understood as contradicting the Church’s position on a given topic?

Donald:  Members can publish whatever they want.  There’s no censorship.  It depends on the context and the person’s motives in doing what has been done.  If a BYU professor, whose salary is paid with Church funds and who has signed an honor code of conduct to keep university rules, then publicly goes out and violates them, then that person is subject to discipline, but he or she is free to speak about any issue he or she wants to….

Philip:  What about those topics not yet given much attention by Church leaders?  Do members have free reign on those topics?  Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for doing genetic research that the Mormon Church had yet to conduct.  How much freedom is one afforded on such controversial but relatively unaddressed topics?  Mother in Heaven is another example of a controversial topic upon which people have published and been punished for doing so.

Donald:  Well, in the case of Murphy, he says that because of DNA he has proven that the Book of Mormon is not true.  How does he know?  There were other groups of people here in America before Lehi arrived here….How could DNA prove or disprove the truthfulness of a book brought here under the hand of God?…

I do not know anything regarding those who have been disciplined for publishing on the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.  Chances are they presented their ideas in a way that ran counter to true religion and to the Church and its teachings.  Speculation on such matters can lead members astray and destroy faith in God the Father.  Praying to a Mother in Heaven is not a true doctrine, no matter how it is defined or presented.  It undermines faith in the true process of offering prayers, which is to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Christ.

Members can believe anything they want.  Church members may believe they have a Mother in Heaven, but to go out teaching that we ought to pray to her, or that we give details about her when both the prophets and the scriptures are silent–this violates the teachings of the Church…

If Church members go to their friends and start talking about practicing plural marriage, they are not in harmony with the Church.  Yes, there are some things where common sense says, “Don’t discuss it in private or in public.”  Otherwise, hey, I’ve got the freedom to think anything I want, but I need to be careful that I’m not trying to represent the Church with my point of view or convince others that a certain doctrine or practice represents true religion or is what the issue or is what the Church teaches.  As an individual, I can speculate all I want on any issue or topic as long as I keep to myself those matters that are not in harmony with truth and the Church and its teachings.

If I am a prominent or well thought of member of the Church, and I present a paper in the name of religious freedom that one might consider worshiping idols, I can expect Church discipline.  That doctrine is contrary to true religion and the teachings of God.  To bring up controversial topics in meetings such as sacrament meeting, Sunday School, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, etc., could raise questions and jeopardize one’s standing in the Church…

Philip:  Yet Janice Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for her insistence on publishing a clearly speculative paper entitled, “Toward a Theology of God the Mother.”⁴ Why was she disciplined for asserting her opinion?

Donald:  I believe I have already established the fact that I can’t comment on Church discipline, as that is confidential and would violate privacy issues.  As a member of the church, I don’t know.  I wasn’t involved there and don’t know the facts.  Such a doctrine has not been revealed through a living prophet, and it is not appropriate to be a member of the Church and teach to others in any setting doctrines or practices that run counter to true religion and the Church and its teachings, such as practicing plural marriage or other theories that are not mainstream teachings of the living prophets.

I really thought Whitesides “Gestapo-like” comment was a wild exaggeration, but after hearing what Jessee had to say, I’m not so sure.  According to Wikipedia,

The committee was formed during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson,[1] soon after Benson became president in 1985.[2]

The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry.^[3] The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). England came to regret his impulsive comments and apologized to all parties individually.^[4]

In response to this public discourse, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee.^[5] LeFevre said that the committee “receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that ‘conceivably could do harm to the church’”, then the committee will “pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” According to LeFevre, however, “the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.” Discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders.”^[6]

After reading all this, I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs.  I find it a little ironic that President Benson started it.  He was quite a conspiracy theoriest, as I mentioned in my post about his anti-Communist rhetoric.  I keep hearing in different settings that the church is much more open now, but I’m not so sure.  For example, at a recent conference at BYU, professor Ronald Esplin said this is one of the best environments to study church history since the “Camelot” era of the 1970s.

However, discipline for intellectuals still seems to occur.   The Wikipedia article mentions that in 2004, the committee put together a dossier on Grant Palmer, author of Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.  (Palmer was disfellowshipped.)  In the introduction, Lindholm notes on page xii, that excommunications of academics has continued beyond the notorious 1993 September Six (formatting changed)

• In 1994, Professor David Wright of Brandeis University and editor Brent Metcalf were excommunicated for their scripture studies in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:  Explorations in Critical Methodology
• In 1995, author Janice Allred was excommunicated for her writings about Mother in Heaven.
• In 2000, Professor Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for her theological reflections, and
• in 2002, Professor Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for his anthropological work on Mormonism.
• In addition, many other unnamed intellectuals were called into disciplinary interviews that did not result in excommunication.

I know Simon Southerton resigned under pressure from the church following his publication of information on DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Last week, I learned that John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and StayLDS was summoned to a meeting with his Stake President.  He said the meeting went well, and solicited comments to his website.  From my point of view, it bears a lot of parallels with Lynne Whitesides experience in 1993.  John has recently been interviewed on ABC and other news organizations.  Lynne was called in to talk to her bishop following an interview with Chris Vanocur on Channel 4, KTVX.  Here’s what Lynne said on page 4,

In May when my bishop called me to come in to talk, I thought, “Wow…this is great.  Maybe the system does work.  maybe this church really is a place where I can get comfortable.”  I was very excited.  I left early from my feminism class up at teh University of Utah to meet with him.  When I walked in, he was with his two counselors, all in suits, and I’m thinking, “Wow, they really want me back at church.  This is great!”  I sat down, and Virgil Merrill, the bishop, said, “Elder Loren C. Dunn has asked us to meet with you to see if we need to take any ecclesiastical action against you.”

I started to laugh and couldn’t stop.  ”Give me a minute,” I said, “I thought you called m in here because you cared about me.  Let me just have a quick moment to adjust.”  Their faces…you could see that what I has said shocked them, but then we had a lovely talk.  It was not confrontational at all; it was amazing.  At the end, Virgil said he was going to tell Dunn that I was fine.  So, when I received the summons letter I was shocked.

Philip:  Your bishop gave you no warning at all that you were going to be tried by a church court?

Lynne:  No, nothing.  When I found out, I called Lavinia [Fielding Anderson] immediately….We also wrote a letter to the bishop saying that if he went through with the church court, then we were going to let the media know.  Virgil wrote back saying that he wanted to hold it.  He didn’t realize what he was getting into.  He didn’t realize how much press coverage it was going to get.  We heard through the grapevine, he was getting pressure from [Boyd K.] Packer² and other leaders to excommunicate me.

Philip:  Can you elaborate on “the grapevine”?

Lynne:  One of the bishopric counselors involved in my court was relate3d toa  reporter I knew.  Both were at a barbecue once, and the counselor told the reporter, not thinking it would ever get back to me, that they were getting pressure from Church leaders to “do something” about Lynne Whitesides.  Well, it did get back to me, and I knew this going into the trial.

Well, I’ve already quoted quite a bit from the book.  Let me end with a quick summary of things the church apparently doesn’t like us discussing:

• Lynne Whitesides was disfellowshipped for “why I thought it was all right to pray to a female diety.”
• Paul Toscano was excommunicated for defending his wife Margaret.  Basically Margaret was the real target.  To save her, Paul blasted church leaders and was excommunicated for insubordination.  (I’ll discuss Margaret in a bit.)
• Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for her book Women and Authority.
• Lavina Fielding Anderson was excommunicated for documenting ecclesiastical abuse in the Church.
• Michael Quinn was excommunicated for writing a chapter in Hanks book, Women and Authority, and for a Sunstone presentation in 1992 called “150 Years of Truth and Consequences in Mormon History.”
• Janice Merrill Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.
• Margaret  Merrill Toscano was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.  (Note Janice and Margaret are sisters.)
• Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.”  Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.^[3]“

This book is very timely for me.  I have wanted to get more involved in church history.  I also want to maintain good standing int he church.  Lindholm quotes Armaund Mauss in the introduction.  Mauss is a retired Mormon sociologist from Washington State University.  From page xxii

Even the most careful and diplomatic comments will not be much appreciated by many Church leaders, perhaps by most Church leaders, whether general or local.  We have to understand that much going in.  Do not expect to appear on the short list for bishop or Relief Society president if you have been regularly commenting on local or general Church matters.  If prominent Church positions are important to you, keep quiet.  If you’re going to speak up, whether in oral or written media, first cultivate thick skin, then abandon your aspirations for important Church callings; you shouldn’t have them anyway.  Finally, don’t whine when you’re passed over or looked upon with some suspicion.³⁷

Footnote 45 quotes Mauss as saying,

I have come to feel increasingly marginal to the Mormon community during my adult life, at least in a social and intellectual sense, despite my continuing and conscientious participation in church activity (including leadership) and despite my own deep personal faith in the religion itself.

Lindholm goes on to say on page xxiii that

Mormonism is not alone in its desire to censor.  Most Christian traditions–Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike–have a long history of disciplining vocal dissent,⁴² which is a practice supported by a rather strong biblical basis.⁴³.  The LDS Church, however, is different in that its leaders actively discipline select members in order to sustain the appearance of doctrinal purity for the sake of the Church’s integrity and public image.⁴⁴

What do you make of this church discipline?  Do you have any advice for me?

I don’t believe that LDS scripture allows for a restriction against blacks’ holding the priesthood.  Nor do I think that LDS theology can reasonably maintain that today’s blacks are descendants of Cain or that ancient intermarriage with Canaanites perpetuated any racial curse.  Too many scriptures collide with those ideas for them to be valid.

I found this perspective intriguing and  had to learn more.

LDS people have often believed that marriage to Canaanites (who were believed to be black) excluded one from the priesthood.  Yet Allred notes that intermarriage between blacks and white occurred routinely over centuries.  He notes intermarriage occurred in diverse cultures including Egypt, Portugal and the Greco-Roman world.  He notes a problem with LDS interpretations of scriptures.  From page 40,

Secondly, even though the terms Canaanite and Negro have been used interchangeably in the LDS Church, Canaanites weren’t black and they certainly weren’t African.  Biblically, Canaanites descended from Canaan, the fourth son of Ham.  African blacks are generally believed to be descendants of Cush, the first son of Ham.  This is important because the Canaanites were those who have been referred to as the “cursed” lineage while practically nothing is said about Ham’s other children.  It was Canaan who was cursed by Noah–not specifically Ham and not Ham’s other children.  According to Genesis, Noah cursed Canaan after Ham saw his father naked and drunk and ridiculed his father to his other brothers (Gen. 9:21-25).  Before this time, Ham had been righteous: “And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed and they were called the sons of God.”  (Moses 8:13).  This scripture appears in the Pearl of Great Price, which also contains this statement:  ”And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Moses 8:27; italics mine).

These verses are particularly important because Mormon folklore contains the common belief that Ham wrongly married a descendant of Cain, bringing a curse upon himself and his descendants.  If such a commandment forbidding marriage into Cain’s lineage existed, how could Ham have contracted such a marriage and still have been considered righteous enough to get passage on the ark?   The answer has always been that Cain’s genes needed to be preserved; but this argument does not address the fact that Ham was righteous and “walked with God” after his marriage–a circumstance that, according to tradition, was impossible.

Although Canaan was not born until after the flood, there is a land of Canaan referred to in Moses 7:7 before the flood.  There is also a land of Cainan.  It is likely that both are variant spellings of the same word and refer to the same land.  This is because the Book of Moses was dictated by Joseph Smith and the two terms are homophones.  The decision to spell the antediluvian land “Canain” was entirely editorial.  Enoch came from the land of Cainan and called it “a land of righteousness unto this day” (Moses 6:42).  In Moses 7:4-8, Enoch sees a vision of the world “for the space of many generations.”  He describes how the people of Canaan (Cainan?) destroy the people of Shum.  After this, we are told the land is cursed with heat and that a blackness comes upon all the children of Canaan–it was not inherited from Cain.¹⁵

Allred continues further with this reasoning, and notes that on page 42,

Why curse Canaan for his father’s actions?….LDS theology affirms that children who repent are not punished for their ancestor’s faults.

He then quotes the 2nd article of faith, and notes some contradictions.  There are some spurious sources that claimed that Joseph Smith said that Cain could not hold the priesthood because he killed Abel.  However, if murder is the disqualifier, then all murderers should be disqualified.

If priesthood was withheld from Africans because their ancestor [Cain] was a murderer, why were King David’s descendants allowed the priesthood, for he too was a murderer?  Why are not white sons of murderers kept from the priesthood?

The Book of Abraham states that a descendant of Canaan discovered the land of Egypt and that all the Egyptians are descended from Canaan:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.  (Abraham 1:21-22)

The problem that is immediately apparent is the fact that Abraham and Joseph each married an Egyptian woman.  One response offered to counter that damaging evidence has been that the Egyptians at the time of these marriages were Semitic Hyksos who had conquered Egypt and so were not really Canaanites.  This explanation contradicts Abraham 1:21-22.  It also contradicts history.  The Hyksos held power in Egypt for a maximum of only one hundred fifty years.  If they were Egyptians during Abraham’s lifetime, it is not possible for them to still have been in power in Joseph’s day.¹⁸

On page 43, Allred notes that Hugh Nibley said that Asenath

“was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim.”²⁰ Ephraim, son of a Canaanite mother, acquired the birthright by blessing from his grandfather Jacob.  According to LDS theology, the impact of this blessing cannot be underestimated.  The birthright was the right to preside in the priesthood, as will be explained later.

Allred continues to note other discrepancies about Canaanites in the Bible, and notes that Canaanites sometimes married Israelites–the Canaanite harlot Rahab was saved in Jericho, and is an ancestor of Jesus.  (Matt 1:5)  Allred notes that Edomites (Canaanites) were allowed in the the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:7-8)  Moses also married an Ethiopian woman.  From the Bible, Allred concludes on page 45,

Little doubt remains that intermarriage between Canaanites and Israelites destroyed any chance for a pure, non-Canaanite race among the chosen seed.  One third of the house of Judah is Canaanite with an unknown portion among the other tribes.  What then can we make of the curse pronounced by Noah and of Abraham’s comments about Pharaoh’s lineage could not have the ‘right of the priesthood’? (Abr. 1:27).  It may be that Mormons have simply misunderstood those passages of scripture.

Regarding Abraham 1:27, Allred says it was Abraham that had the right to preside over the priesthood, rather than Pharaoh.  He notes that Joseph and his son Ephraim had the right to preside even though they weren’t of the Tribe of Levi.  From page 45,

even though the priesthood did not remain exclusively with Ephraim, the right to preside did.  Moses presided over Israel even though he was of the tribe of Levi.  Joseph Smith, however, claimed to be the “lawful heir” because he was of the tribe of Ephraim (D&C 86:8-11).  Since this authority was passed from father to only one son, when Noah gave it to Shem, Ham could not be the heir.  Ham and Japheth, together with their descendants, did not have the right to administer the priesthood because it was given to Shem.  Esau lost the right to Jacob.  Reuben lost the right to Joseph.  Manasseh lost that right when Jacob conferred it to Ephraim.  Each man who lost the birthright did not lose the right to be ordained to the priesthood; [page 46] rather, he lost the right to preside as the presiding high priest in a patriarchal order.  The scripture does not saw that Pharaoh could not hold the priesthood; it says that he could not have the “right to the priesthood” (Abr. 1:27)  This right had been given to Shem, who in turn gave it to his successor in the patriarchal office.

Years after the right of the priesthood had been passed to Abraham, the Pharaohs were feigning claim to it from Noah.  They did not merely claim priesthood; they claimed the right to preside over the priesthood.  Pharaoh, the son of Egyptus, established a patriarchal government in Egpyt; but he was of the lineage by which he could not have the “right of the priesthood” or “the right of the firstborn,” whic belonged to Shem and his posterity.  In response to Pharaoh’s claims, Abraham states, “But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of the priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands: (Abr. 1:31; italics mine).  In other words, Abraham retained the right to preside over the priesthood.

So what do you think of Allred’s arguments?  Is there any scriptural basis in support of the priesthood ban?

On page 4, the two authors note that the church has “obscured and/or misrepresented in official church publications.”  For example, shortly after the revelation was announced in 1978, the June 17 issue of the Church News did not acknowledge that

Joseph Smith had allowed for the ordination of blacks as founder and leader of the LDS Church; and second, that Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, initiated a practice of denying blacks the priesthood.

The church is finally starting to acknowledge some of these facts.  On page 29, Bringhurst noted that Apostle M Russell Ballard attended the dedication of a monument to Elijah Abel on Sept 28, 2002.  Ballard remarked that Abel was

“one of the few black members to receive the priesthood in the early Church.”  In stating that “black members were not allowed to hold the priesthood from 1852 to 1978,” Ballard conceded, “We don’t know all the reasons why the Lord does what he does….It’s difficult to know why all things happen.”⁷¹

In Chapter 1 of the book, Bringhurst explains the changing scholarship between 1945 to present concerning the priesthood ban.  Fawn Brodie in her 1945 book No Man Knows My History put forth the “Missouri Thesis” as an explanation for the priesthood ban.  In a nutshell, she said that conflicts between slave-supporting Missourians and anti-slavery Mormons erupted into problems.  The Mormons, in order to accommodate Missouri sensibilities, acquiesced on the issue and became more pro-slave.  Brodie noted that the Book of Abraham upheld that descendants of Ham should be servants of all, and that blacks should be denied the priesthood.

At first, other scholars supported the Missouri Thesis.  In the 1950s and 1960s, several authors supported the Missouri Thesis, with Stephen Taggart’s 1970 article being the most influential (called Mormonism’s Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins.)  He noted WW Phelps 1833 article called “Free People of Color” caused non-Mormons to accuse Latter-day Saints  of “tampering with our slaves” which could “instigate them to bloodshed.”  In an “Extra”, Phelps responded that the article was “misunderstood”, but non-Mormons soon destroyed the Mormon printing press.  Taggart called this incident “the first hint of the emergence of the practice of excluding Negroes from the priesthood.”  Taggart said that the Extra “illustrates the process by which social stress was the instrumental factor in causing the Missouri Mormons to abandon their northern attitudes in favor of an anti-negro posture.”⁹ Taggart did note that some blacks tried to be baptized in 1835 or 1836 but there was a lack of “general consensus or Church-wide policy covering the subject [or black priesthood ordination] as late as 1838″, but there was no theological justification for denying the priesthood to blacks at this early period.  Bringhurst notes on page 17 that

“With the publication of the Book of Abraham [in 1842] all elements for the Church’s policy of denying the priesthood were present,” Taggart wrote, although he conceded that the “ordination of Negroes continued within the Church as late as 1841.”²⁰

In 1970, Lester Bush disputed some of Taggart’s claims.  Also from page 17,

Bush concedes that Taggart’s study “appear[s] more comprehensive than previous treatments, and…cites some uncommon, though seemingly very relevant references.”  Thus it gave the “impression that a very good case is being made.”  But despite its “generally accurate and well-documented rehearsal of the Jackson County period,” Bush found that it was marred “by an increasing incidence of speculative statements and secondary sources, and a sprinkling of factual errors….Most disturbingly…a number of relevant points [were] omitted from” Taggart’s treatments of “Mormon history and doctrine and the general setting in which they arose.”²³

Bush challenged Taggart’s undocumented assertion “that the early Mormons, were, in fact, abolitionists.”  Bush also questioned Taggart’s effort to place the origins of the Mormon black priesthood denial in the 1830s and found unconvincing the 1879 testimonies of Coltrin and Smoot.

…

[page 18] Bush questioned Taggart’s assertion that Joseph Smith intended the Book of Abraham as a “theological justification” for black priesthood denial.  Bush pointed to Taggart’s own admission that the Book of Abraham was “vague and cannot by itself be said to justify denying the priesthood to Negroes.”  Bush also noted the “lack of evidence that Joseph Smith ever used the book of Abraham to justify priesthood denial (nor apparently did any other Church leader, until the Utah period.)”²⁵ In fact, according to Bush,the earliest or “first known documentation of the policy of priesthood denial” came in 1849, five years after Joseph Smith’s death.  “There remains no period source to support the contention that Joseph Smith was the author of [Mormon black priesthood denial].”  Bush conceded that “Joseph Smith did express the then-prevalent opinion that Negroes were descendants of Canaan and Cain; yet he did not relate this to the priesthood in any account now available.”²⁶

So, we have a difference of opinion as to whether the Missouri Thesis was a correct interpretation for the implementation of the Priesthood ban.  Since the 1970′s most scholars have questioned the Missouri Thesis, including Ronald K Esplin, Michael Quinn, and Armaund Mauss to name a few.  Bringhurst sums up the scholarship to present on page 28,

In conclusion, what is the significance of all of these varied scholarly examinations?  It is evident that both Fawn M. Brodie and Stephen L. Taggart overstated their cases relative to the Mormon Missouri experience.    What about the contradictory, sometimes conflicting findings of John L. Brooker, D. Michael Quinn, Armaund L. Mauss, Robert Ben Madison, Rex E. Cooper, Klaus Hansen, and Lester Bush?  What do they tell us about the LDS presence in Missouri relative to evolving Mormon attitudes on race and the place of blacks?

In a sense, one is left with more questions than answers.  But what is clear is that the Mormon sojourn in Missouri left a mixed legacy–both negative and positive.  On the negative side, the Mormon presence in Missouri caused Joseph Smith and other church spokesmen to express tolerance for black slavery, which was most evident in the church’s official 1835 statement in which the Latter-day Saints pledged not to “interfere with bond-servants” or “influence them to become dissatisfied with their situations.”  This statement was eventually incorporated as section 134:12 in the Doctrine and Covenants and thus accepted as Mormon church canon.

…

[page 29] In contrast on the positive size is the fact that Mormon black priesthood denial did not emerge during the 1830s, despite the negative developments outlined above, all of which occurred as the Latter-Day Saints struggled to establish their Missouri Zion.  Thus, the central tenet of the Missouri thesis lacks historical credibility.  In fact, the practice of Mormon black priesthood denial was not implemented until 1847, three years after the death of Joseph Smith.  Moreover, at least two African American Latter-day Saints received their priesthood ordinations during the Mormon prophet’s lifetime–the most noteworthy being Elijah Abel.

While there were certainly problems in Missouri, how much of an impact on the priesthood ban were these problems?

“I know in April, I can’t raise my hand to sustain Church leaders after their position…” wrote one well-known tea party activist.

“They (the LDS Church) should lose their tax exempt status,” wrote a conservative Young Republican delegate heretofore loyal to the Mormon Church.

In another SL Tribune article, Peggy Fletcher Stack wrote,

Burton’s presence was an extraordinarily public endorsement for the LDS Church, which typically prefers to work in the background. And it has supporters and critics from within the faith scrambling to know how to react.

One thing is clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has abandoned its claims to neutrality on these bills.

And that surprised many who have been told repeatedly by the church’s spokesmen that it had no position and that its lobbyists, Bill Evans and John Taylor, were on Capitol Hill solely to answer questions.

Though Evans and Taylor assured Ron Mortensen, an ardent opponent of illegal immigration, that the church wasn’t actively lobbying on the issue, the two “spent literally the last 10 days in the back alleys of the Capitol, like full-time fixtures,” Mortensen said. “It wouldn’t have taken that much time to say the church is neutral.”

Both supporters and opponents agree that the church’s endorsement of the Utah Compact and its involvement in the legislative process was a game-changer.

If the Utah Legislature had been in session right after Arizona passed its stringent immigration law, the Beehive State “likely would have gotten the same thing,” said Paul Mero, president of the conservative Sutherland Institute.

But with LDS Church support for immigration reform, Mero said, “We’ve had a 180[-degree] turn in this state. Culturally, more and more folks understand how reasonable comprehensive reform is compared to enforcement only.”

So, what’s your take on the immigration issue, and Utah’s repudiation of the Sandstrom Bill (patterned after the controversial Arizona law)?  Did the threat of limiting missionary visa’s have any effect on this legislation?

I’ve decided to do a little survey.  Here are some dictionary definitions for prejudice, bigotry, and racism.  Perhaps some terms are better used than others terms for certain topics.  What do you think?