I finally finished Paul Reeve’s book Religion of a Different Color. Paul highlights the strange evolution of Mormons, once seen as not white enough, now seen as too white. From page 270,
…as late as 2012 the perception persisted in some corners that Mormons were racist and that there were few or no black Mormons. It was a new racial problem for Mormonism, which was the opposite dilemma it faced almost two centuries previously. In the 1830s reports of the integrated and charismatic nature of Mormon worship services in Kirtland, Ohio, made news in New York and Pennsylvania within months of Black Pete’s conversion to the new faith. In Missouri, the perception that Mormons invited freed blacks to move to that state in order to incite a slave rebellion and violate white women only fueled interracial rumors.
I found it interesting that Reeve noted (page 269)
In the United States, the Pew survey noted that 86% of Mormons were white, an indication that US Mormonism is more racially diverse than mainline Protestant churches (91% white), Jews (95% white), and Orthodox Christians (87% white).
Yet nobody seems to make this fact known about mainline Protestants. (I have a feeling that many of these mainline Protestants are Donald Trump supporters…..)
What I loved most about the book was the highlight of Orson Pratt. Of course many (including myself) have long condemned the racial ban, the more I learned about Orson Pratt’s defense of black rights, the more proud I was of him. I think Orson is one of my new Mormon heroes.
On Feb 4, 1852, the Utah Legislature passed “An Act in Relation to Service”, a bill regulating slavery in the Utah Territory. Brigham Young then gave the oft quoted references to the Curse of Ham as a reason to support slavery in Utah. Bills calling for the incorporation of Cedar City and Fillmore, Utah came up, both authorizing that “all free white male inhabitants” could vote. This was a normal provision of the day, yet Orson Pratt made an astonishing claim, just 9 years prior to the Civil War. From page 153,
Legislator Hosea Stout recorded that Pratt opposed all acts that day that denied blacks the right to vote. The legislative minutes show Pratt’s “no” votes on both incorporation bills. For the Fillmore bill the minutes specify that “Councilor Pratt opposed the bill on the ground that colored people were there prohibited from voting.”41 It was an extraordinary stance for Pratt to take. It is possible that he arrived at the legislature determined to make a point regarding the rights of black residents in Utah Territory, and Young’s speech only strengthened his resolve. He and Young were repeatedly at odds, and perhaps Pratt’s position was one that spilled over from debate over passage of the territorial election bill. At the very least it was a stinging rejection of Young’s speech. Pratt’s votes were politically progressive, well ahead of Young, his fellow Saints, and the rest of the nation.42
I heard Reeve and Lajean Purcell discuss Pratt’s recently discovered speech. Apparently Pratt’s speech was recorded in a special form of shorthand, which is no longer used. Purcell learned how to decipher the shorthand and revealed the astonishing speech Pratt made. I’ve been looking forward to hear more of his speech, but this summary is simply an astounding position for any pre-Civil War politician to make.
It may come as a surprise that Early Mormons also defended Muslims. From page 221,
In 1841, when the city council of Nauvoo, Illinois, drafted a provision on religious liberty…[including] “Mohammedans,” which was a striking inclusion, especially considering that Joseph Smith was derisively labeled an “American Mohamet” very early in his religious journey. At Nauvoo the city council signaled a welcoming attitude toward “Mohammedans” should they desire to settle among the Latter-day Saints. It was an unlikely scenario simply because there were so few Muslims in Illinois and elsewhere in the United States.
The open attitude persisted in Utah as well. In 1855, for example, LDS apostle George A. Smith defended Mohammed to a Mormon audience in Salt Lake City. “There was nothing in his religion to license iniquity or corruption,” Smith said, “he preached the moral doctrines which the Savior taught,” including the worship of one God, to treat others as you want to be treated, and not to “render evil for evil.” In fact, Smith found Mohammed to be an instrument in God’s hands, a man “raised up by God on purpose to scourge the world for their idolatry.”16
In a follow-up speech the same day, fellow apostle Parley P. Pratt was more direct. He found Islam preferable to Catholicism, a religion he derided for its idol worship, religious iconography, and veneration of saints. For Pratt, “Mahometan doctrine” was a standard raised against such corruption.
Of course Mormon leaders weren’t always so nice.
Three years later, fellow apostle John Taylor was not so complimentary toward Islam when he linked Mohammed to the “power, prowess, and bloodshed” of his day. Even still, the Mormon position was remarkable accepting within a national culture that tended to view Islam as a religious corruption and its founder as an imposter.17
Reeve tells of another interesting tidbit. President Theodore Roosevelt supported Mormon apostle Reed Smoot during the contentious debate on whether Smoot was fit to serve. “It marked a political transition for Mormons, from Democrats to Republicans and from politically suspect to politically desirable.” Roosevelt championed Mormons exceptionally high birth rate even though it was the result of polygamy.
Reeve documents some terrible quotes from apostle Mark E. Petersen in 1959 in which Petersen derided interracial marriage
was a clear indication of “what the negro is after.” It was not merely integrated lunch counters, streetcars, and theaters, but as Petersen viewed it, “The negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied,” Peterson worried, “until he achieves it by intermarriage.”
Of course this is starkly contrasted by apostle Spencer W. Kimball, who in 1963
Signaled his open attitude: “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory,” Kimball acknowledged, “I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”
Once again, this is an astounding statement. Kimball said that God could “forgive the possible error”! While much has been written about the problems with the ban, I am so grateful to hear the words and positions of Orson Pratt and President Kimball, as well as the encouraging words about Islam in the face of the horrible racism in Donald Trump’s disgusting race war to the White House.
Reeve’s book is an awesome addition to the subject of Mormonism’s racial history, and the changing positions of the Church over the past two centuries is a really interesting way to approach the subject. I highly recommend the book. What are your thoughts regarding Pratt, Kimball, and Islam?
Wheat & Tares 
Hmm, integrated charismatic worship services, even Muslims! OMG sounds pretty darn subversive. What about gays were they able to ban their children back then or is this is a more recent eternal law? What would we do without living prophets?
If I ever study Brigham Young, I will never be surprised to not agree with a fair amount of the things he said, including a lot of things members of the Church leadership has said in decades past and myself when years ago I had certain ideas on where to find truth.
I am a Trump supporter, though. Americans should help people as we have done in the past but when they come into our country and start to kill us then we need to have them live somewhere else. This country needs to lock its doors and clean up this country.
It’s much worse now than it was at the time of Brigham Young. The nation got the Cival War, but I think the Mormons kind of missed that. All we did was say stupid stuff thinking we were the kings of righteousness. Now the world economy is ready to collapse and I wonder if any of us are ready.
If we can’t weasel our way to the realization that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lords Church regardless of the stupid things we have said, than we won’t make it either. All we will be is a bunch little children crying our eyes out because things have gotten scary.
The last thing this nation needs is what politicians have done to it. Good riddance to virtually all of them even if what they have built hurts when it falls.
George A. Smith’s may not be defending Muslims so much as spinning the accusations in Thomas Marsh’s affidavit.
Orsen Pratt and Spencer kimberly are not only Mormon’s heroes, but saints of progressive ideas, compassion, values and faith.
A new face of the Mormon church is unfolding. A face of sparkling colors representing all races. Of course there is no racial distinction in heaven.
Mormom Heretic, you sold me. I just ordered a copy of the book from Amazon. Hopefully you get a small percentage of the profits! LOL
Mike, glad you liked the review. It is an excellent book. Daniel, I’m not following you regarding the Thomas Marsh affidavit. Mormons were frequently linked with Muslims due to both Mohammed being a prophet, but also because both practice polygamy. Gentiles linking Islam and Mormonism was more of a slur against Mormons, and was designed to show Mormons were “other”. At first Mormons defended Muslims, but over time Mormons quit defending Muslims to show they were true Americans.
Mormons were also compared disfavorably with Black’s and Chinese and native Americans as well, and followed a similar pattern of embracing the slur at first, then distancing themselves to become more American.
I’m not sure what your referring to with Thomas Marsh.
Rich, sorry to say this, but you’ve drunk too deeply from the extremist-paranoia Kool-Aid. Admitting you’re a Trump supporter and thinking the world economy is ready to collapse are pretty extreme notions. Where are you getting your information? Turn off the right-wing radio and quit poisoning your mind.
While I was also pleased at the church’s statements in response to Trump, it’s hard not to be cynical. Religious freedom is a high priority for church leaders right now, and this opportunity to point out the arrogance of (hopeful) government officials in trampling on the religious rights of American citizens was too good to pass up. I have a difficult time seeing it as pure indignation at the thought of villifying another religious subgroup over bolstering a current initiative.
As for Pratt and Kimball… hindsight is tricky. There are many in the church today who would still see Pratt’s views as extreme, not President Young’s, though they likely number less than 50 years ago. Admitting a “possible error” leading to the ban is still a step away from admitting the ban was an error itself. Even the race essay does not go so far as to suggest previous leaders were wrong to institute the ban, merely stating that previous leaders were working with a more limited understanding. While it is okay for Uchtdorf and Kimball to play with the idea that church leaders might be capable of errors in their official capacities, that is *far* from a mainstream belief.
Here is the pertinent part of the Marsh affidavit.
“I have heard the prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies & walk over their dead bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahamet to the generations, & that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic ocean. That like Mahamet, whose motto in treating for peace was the Alcoran or the sword, so should it be eventually with us – Jo Smith or the sword.”
The church has asserted that the affidavit was slanderous. George A. Smith replaced Thomas B. Marsh in the quorum of the twelve when Marsh left the church because of the increasingly militant statements of church leaders during the Missouri period. George A. Smith was also the source for the milk strippings story that gave rise to subsequent claims that Marsh was motivated by a grudge he held against other church officers.
The address quoted here is from September 23, 1855, and can be found in the Journal of Discourses. It is not an example of egalitarianism like Parley P. Pratt. It begins with a full throated defense of slavery and the priesthood ban. In context, these short quotes really only serve to make an argument for Muslim exercise of military force more palatable, and by analogy Mormon use of military force. The central argument of the address is really the same as the accusation in Marsh’s affidavit, but stated much more subtly.
I’m sure that the thesis of this book does not rest solely on the analysis of this particular speech. It is obviously only touched on briefly and in passing. I just thought it odd that this discourse was so badly represented.
Mary Ann:
“…the idea that church leaders might be capable of errors in their official capacities, that is *far* from a mainstream belief.”
Not for me.
Daniel,
I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. The Marsh affadivit was in 1838 I believe, and led the the Extermination Order expelling Mormons in Missouri. This address by George A. Smith comes 17 years later in 1855, so I’m not sure why you’re linking the two speeches. Sure Smith may have replaced Marsh, but I’m not sure what relevance that has to this discussion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if George A. Smith was making a defense of slavery. That is not really surprising, and as you said, not really egalitarian in nature. However, the defense of Muslims is tied quite directly to Reeve’s thesis that Mormons once embraced Blacks, Chinese, Muslims, especially when gentiles sought to paint Mormons as not white enough. Then, over time, Mormons came to accept gentile positions on Blacks, Chinese, and Muslims. This is very much in line with Reeve’s thoughts on the changing positions of Mormons on other out-groups.
So while George A. Smith may have been defending slavery and Muslims in the same speech in 1855–and this may not seem egalitarian in our day, I don’t think it contradicts Reeve’s point that Mormons at first embraced the slurs associated with Blacks, Muslims, and Chinese, and then distanced themselves from these slurs and joined in the slurs against Blacks, Muslims, and Chinese.
Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding your point.
I’m sorry for not being more clear. (I’m aiming for brevity, but It just ends up difficult to follow.)
I don’t disagree with the thesis of the book as you summarized it: “Mormons at first embraced the slurs associated with Blacks, Muslims, and Chinese, and then distanced themselves from these slurs and joined in the slurs against Blacks, Muslims, and Chinese.”
I don’t believe that George A. Smith’s motivations had much, if anything, to do with being open to Muslims. The events of Missouri had a profound effect on George A. Smith and he continued to speak about them in Utah. The address form which we get the milk strippings story was given seven months after the talk cited here, so I doesn’t seem that George A. Smith felt he was too far removed from the events for them to have lost relevance.
I objected to the way the speech was quoted because the short innocuous virtues mentioned are a very small part of the speech. The vast majority of it was related to an analogy of military history, a fraught topic for someone familiar with the Marsh affidavit. George A. Smith was certainly familiar with the affidavit having replaced its author in the quorum of the twelve.
I believe the the positive statements about Muslims in the speech are only tangential to George A. Smith’s purpose. The talk is really about the possibility of the saints building a literal kingdom (and the use of force to do so.) If the talk had been presented strictly as evidence that George A. Smith had embraced a slur previously directed at the saints, that would have made sense. (i.e. You are Muslims; Fine. We’ll be like the Muslims and kill our persecutors.) I don’t think that the embrace of the slur includes an embrace of the other people who had previously been maligned. The quoted passage seems to argue that George A. Smith would embrace Muslims, and his speech in it entirety does not support this argument.