Discussion:Racial issues/Racial statements by Church leaders

Quick comments

First, the link from the template to FAIR site doesn't seem to work for me (missing the www prefix I think).

Second, I think the discussion about the views of McKay and Benson regarding Civil Rights and Communism should be improved. Mainly, I'd drop the word "grossly" since I think it's conceding a bit too much to say that these statements were grossly racist (racist from today's perspective, yes, but not grossly so and not racist from their perspectives...).

Third, I came across this pro-black statement by Joseph Smith and was wondering if it'd be worth incorporating or linking to in the article (perhaps a simple statement to the effect, "to be fair, many Church leaders also made several progressive racial statements"):

"At five went to Mr. Sollars' with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on. "Elder Hyde remarked, 'Put them on the level, and they will rise above me.' I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (History of the Church, 5:217-218, copied from here.)

Since I'm so new here and still getting a sense of the way articles should be written, I'm a bit shy about making any of these changes myself, at least without at getting some feedback first.... --RobertCouch 19:36, 29 Jun 2006 (MDT)

Thanks for your thoughts, Robert. Your input is very valuable.

1. I fixed the link to the FAIR comments web site. The FAIR webmaster recently changed the contact page name; thanks for pointing that out.
2. The "grossly racist" comment was mine, and I was referring to "virtually everyone in America" holding beliefs which, from our perspective, were "grossly racist." I think history bears this out. They, of course, didn't think anything of it; it was normal. But, looking back, most Americans in the 1940s and 50s were bigots by today's standards. For example, interracial dating and marriage certainly weren't tolerated; today, most people don't think twice about it. A black family moving into a white neighborhood was scandalous (see A Raisin in the Sun as an example of prevalent 1950s attitudes), and many neighborhoods had CC&Rs forbidding the sale of homes to blacks.
   In 1954 Elder Mark E. Petersen gave an address at BYU in which he warned against intermarriage and stated that segregation was of God (excerpts here). And there are a lot of other statements from Church leaders up through the early 1970s that would be considered offensively racist by today's standards (some samples). The question is how to deal with them. Personally, I'm in favor of simply saying, "Yes, by today's standards those attitudes were racist. But by the standards of their own time, they were pretty normal. We're learning and growing and becoming better people. God doesn't force us to change our attitudes about everything we encounter in our society."
   So I think grossly is a fair word, simply because it lays our cards on the table and doesn't try to cover up or minimize things that are embarrassing to us today. But I'd like to get more feedback on this issue — what would be a better way of being forthright?
3. I mention that quote from Joseph Smith in parentheses and reference it in footnote #1 (using the TPJS version). I didn't think the quote fit anywhere in the text as I wrote it. If you'd like to work it in somehow, go right ahead. Another alternative is to create a reference page with quotes on race from various Church leaders.

Comments? --MikeParker 15:37, 30 Jun 2006 (MDT)

Mike, good points. I actually misread the "grossly" statement (or mis-remembered how it was used when typing the comment above). On closer inspection, I have no qualms with how you've used it. In general I like the article as is. These are probably more nit picks than anything serious, but a couple more thougths:

1. I Page of quotes on race. I like your idea of putting together a statements on race from church leaders. One idea would be to do a separate page of all positive/progressive quotes, and then address a few negative quotes on this page. The reason for this approach would be that the purpose of this site is probably not to advertise the negative/embarassing quotes. Of course a strong reason against this approach is that it would be less forthright. So I'd probably vote for a page with a few representative negative quotes, and a few positive/progressive quotes.
2. Old Testament examples. I like this argument in the post. I'm a little worried a skeptical reader would think that a belief such as the world being flat is an unoffensive believe whereas a racist belief is offensive, so your example is comparing apples to oranges. A more biting example might be something like 1 Sam 15:3 where the prophet Samuel tells Saul to kill women and children (see the discussion page there for some brief discussion, links and thoughts on this). However, I think it would take a fair amount of work to incorporate this in the write up, and I'm not up to the task right now (and like I said, I think this is a fairly minor complaint).
3. Rewording of Joseph Smith's comment. I tried to slightly reword the paragraph that linked to the JS comment, but I think I overdid it. With the previous wording I was worried that a reader would miss the emphasis about other Christians holding such beliefs, so I tried to emphasize this by contrasting to JS's comments to other Christians (as opposed to other Mormons who held these beliefs). I'm not happy with the rewording I did, so I'm hoping someone will improve on it.
4. Line upon line reference. My sense is that most Christians have a different reading of this phrase from Isaiah 28:10 (the link is to a Feast wiki discussion on this issue, mostly taken from a blog post by Kevin Barney). So I added a reference to the BOM scripture which uses this phrase in the way I think it was intended.
5. Not make them into radicals. I think a counterargument to this point is that prophets are often radical in a spiritual sense (which is why so many of them were killed!). I understand the point of this paragraph, but I think somehow it should be reworded to emphasize the spiritual nature of a prophet's calling, as opposed to a politically-charged calling. Of course this is a whole new can of worms which I think is somewhat controversial amongst Mormons as well as Christians more generally. (One example is Liberation Theology which I think ties Christian teachings to political agendas. Also, I think one reason the Jews didn't accept Christ as the Messiah is b/c he didn't have a political agenda like they interpreted the scriptures to have. And of course JS did run for President. Like I said, a can of worms....)
6. BOM misinterpretation. Should racism in the BOM be addressed on this page? or on some other page? A good article by John Tvedtnes discusses this issue, I'm just wondering where we're planning to go with the race and cultural pages on this site, and if there's an appropriate place to address this issue (or if the race and cutural issues page at FAIR is sufficient).

If you can't tell, it's easier for me to critique and comment then to actually write something constructive, sorry! --RobertCouch 17:28, 30 Jun 2006 (MDT)

---

• Just a small point. How about the phrase "overtly racist" instead of "grossly"? That gets rid of the association that these men were somehow flagrantly, excessively, or pre-occupied with racist ideas, but acknowledges that the race issue may be 'front and centre,' and is not merely a hidden, unconscious assumption. It might strike a happy medium between frankness, and the connotations of 'grossly,' which are, I think, a bit over-the-top if read from a certain point of view (though I realize what Mike meant). It might be read as a greater admission that he meant to make, however....

Greg Smith 21:07, 2 Jul 2006 (MDT)