The United States, throughout the nation’s relatively short history, experienced numerous divisions and controversies due to race and racial policies. From the beginning of slavery to the turbulent Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, the oppression of African Americans colored these social conflicts related to race. Today, one finds evidence of these past race-related problems in the Mormon Church, which only relatively recently, in 1978, allowed men of African descent to obtain equal status in the Latter-day Saints’ religious community.
Bruce R. McConkie, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Mormon Church, explains and elaborates on the 1978 revelation, which permitted men of African descent to receive the priesthood, in his “All Are Alike Unto God” speech. Utilizing well-known biblical language and established church doctrine, McConkie provides a compelling argument in favor of the new revelation. The Apostle focuses much of his speech to the missionary benefits of the new revelation, including the expansion of the Mormon Church’s ability to “preach the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people” (1). Though certainly supportive of the new church doctrine, McConkie does not apologize for prior church policies that discriminated against individuals of African lineage. Rather instead, he simply states that “the time had arrived when the gospel, with its blessings and obligations, should go to the Negro” and that “it doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978)” (3). By carefully studying this speech, by delving into McConkie’s utter loyalty to his faith community, one infers that the Mormon Church continued to practice discriminatory policies throughout their history not due to their personal beliefs pertaining to race, but rather due to their adherence to their religious traditions and culture.
Armand Mauss, an American Sociologist, in chapter eight of his book, All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, delves into the shifting LDS stance towards individuals of African lineage from 1830 to 1978. The Mormon community, after their arduous exodus to Utah in 1847 and Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, prohibited the priesthood to this particular segment of the population. In the late 1970s, years of tenuous public relations finally forced the Saints to revise their doctrine, allowing men of African descent to obtain the high status of priesthood. Mauss employs historical dates, psychological surveys, and religious quotes, including those from the Book of Mormon, to highlight and explain Mormon racism in the context of greater American societal trends.
Though Mauss attempts to remove value judgments from his socio-historical work, the author fails to do so. In his analysis of LDS racial prejudice, Mauss supports the Mormon Church in the face of their discriminatory practices and their unwillingness to change their policies until the late 1970s. The sociologist places blame for the church’s long history of bigoted views on national racism, the lack of stability in the Mormon community in Utah, and misinterpretations of Smith’s words in The Pearls of Great Price. Indeed, Mauss states that groups like the NAACP, when the party charged the Mormon Church with perpetuating harmful bigotry in the secular world, actually lacked “empirical evidence” for such claims (219).
Furthermore, in his assessment of discrimination in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mauss completely ignores the definite presence of other types of historical prejudice in the Mormon community, most notably that against women. Unlike men of African lineage, females, both black and white, never received the priesthood and continue to exist as lesser members of the church (as discussed in class, they do, however, possess the role of motherhood). Any mention of discrimination against women as part of official church practice never appears in Mauss’ work. Ultimately, the lack of depth in his arguments and his unwillingness to make perhaps more bold assertions against discriminatory practices in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints limits Armand Mauss’ arguments and assessments to that of a simplistic report, from which readers may potential make a number of false assumptions concerning Mormon racial and discriminatory practices.
O. Kendall White and Daryl White, in their sociological article “Negotiating Cultural and Social Contradictions: Interracial Dating and Marriage Among African American Mormons,” continue the story of racial policies in the Mormon church, focusing on Mormon viewpoints towards African Americans from 1978 to the present. While strongly encouraging the raising of a family within a matrimonial relationship, Mormons today continue to discourage interracial marriage, particularly between whites and blacks. This social proscription frequently creates personal problems for African American Mormons, who lack an abundance of potential dating and marriage partners who belong to their own race and church.
In comparison to Mauss and his utilization of data, dates, and religious quotes, White and White employ personal testimonies of black Latter-day Saints to support their claims pertaining to the African American Mormon community and to marriage. These testimonies permit the voices of the people involved in the Mormon community to rise above the authors’ own words, creating a poignant, comprehensive picture of the variety of manners in which African American Mormons negotiate their cultural and social contradictions. The employment of individual stories also limits the personal bias of the individual authors, who remain relatively neutral narrators throughout their article. However, White and White’s reliance on oral histories to portray a social theme certainly limits the scope of their claims. The authors fully acknowledge this limitation in the introduction of their article, stating that, “since we do not know how representative their experience may be for black Mormons, we make no generalizations regarding the church as a whole” (86). Overall, White and White provide a narrow, yet genuine portrayal of racism and its effects on Mormon society.
Questions for Class Discussion:
1. How did the Mormon’s status as a persecuted religious minority in America affect its opinion towards people of African descent? Did the Mormons’ status as a persecuted religious minority cause the community to become more tolerant or less tolerant of individuals of African lineage?
2. How has racism in the United States changed its form in the last few decades? Does racism still exist in the Mormon community? Is the Mormon Church simply reflecting and exposing racial tendencies that still permeate the United States as a whole?
3. How does the Mormon community, in their current views towards interracial marriage, reflect greater trends occurring in our society today in relation to interracial dating? Does this lack of enthusiasm for interracial dating permeate mainstream culture? How does this affect society as a whole (hurt, help, doesn’t affect, etc.)?
4. Terminology can be very powerful. The use of certain terms can provoke strong reaction. Why did White and White and Mauss use the term “black” instead of “people of African lineage"? Does this reveal bias? Why does pejoration affect certain terms and not others?
I believe that racism still exists but the extremity and the form has changed significantly. Racism in the United States is not as intense or common as it was before. But, there are still individuals who oppose interracial relationships. As well, racism is not only mainly based on the hatred of another race or the feeling of superiority. I think in today’s time, it’s much more based on generalizations and stereotypes. For example, in my opinion, racism is believing that a someone of a Middle Eastern descent is automatically considered a terrorist because of the actions of someone with the same descent. Or, just because someone is African American, they’re automatically associated with gangs and violence, just because other African Americans’ actions. I’m sure racism still exists in the Mormon community just as racism still exists in other communities. But, I think racism in the Mormon community has followed the same trend that occurred for the rest of the nation.
ReplyDeleteThe Mormon’s view of interracial marriage shares some similarities with that of American society. Within the Church of the Latter Day Saints, interracial marriage has become more common especially since the revelation of 1978. The articles mention some African-American Latter Day Saints who assert that it is more important to them that they marry within the church than within their own race. The increase (however slight) of interracial marriage in the Mormon community is reflective of a much higher augmentation of mixed couples in American society. Barack Obama, our president, even comes from an interracial marriage. There is speculation that by 2050 in America, whites, as a race, will be in the minority.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Mormons' status as a persecuted minority definitely informed their prejudiced opinions towards people of African descent. In a time in which there are many minorities competing for recognition (economic, cultural, political...) often minorities will fight against each other. They will put each other down in order to prove to the majority that they are worthy of acceptance. I think that the Mormons followed this line of thinking, 'if we prejudice against people of African descent like every other American, we can prove to the country that we are just like them, that we recognize the superiority of the white race, and that we will do anything to protect it'. In this way, they used their prejudice against people of African descent to try and gain favor from the nation at large. They hoped to establish themselves as "then enemy (Mormons) of my enemy (blacks) is my (common American citizen) friend". This attempt was common in late 19th century America and can even still be seen today when minorities exhibit prejudice against people of Muslim descent (like Betty said). In the end the Mormons felt that as a minority they could gain legitimacy if they were intolerant of another minority, in this case people of African descent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Betty's thinking that racism still exists today but in different forms. When people used the term "racism" years ago, it was usually connected solely to the treatment of African Americans and sometimes Native Americans. In today' society, the term "racism" encompasses predominately Muslims, Mexicans, Asians and African Americans. While I think that most people have become more accepting of other races, racism is still a problem in our society. It is all too often that I hear a racist joke that uses stereotypes to draw sweeping conclusions. In my experience, jokes like these are never contested by anyone in the group.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Mormons' status as a religious minority has much to do with how they tolerated people with African lineage. As we have seen in previous readings, the Mormons are relatively similar to the rest of American society on a number of issues. The belief that blacks were inferior was common in the early 1800s and prior. The Mormon church was founded in this time period and it is very likely that racism would permeate the ideology of a truly "American" religion. It is possible that the Mormons tolerance (or lack thereof) stemmed from their minority status. There are numerous examples of lower class whites mistreating blacks in order to feel superior to them. During the Jim Crow era there are stories of poor whites attacking middle-class blacks who were doctors or lawyers. In Boston and New York immigrant Irish and Italians attacked and lynched blacks, perhaps to be accepted into the American black-white power structure. Thus, the Mormons were just playing into an already dominant racist ideology and made themselves feel more a part of white American sentiments.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, racism is still apart of our society in this day. Though people may act as if it is over and everyone in the United States has positively moved past it, it still lives in some parts of the American life whether it be stemming from a blatant white supremacist or be alive in the actions of people in their everyday life. A majority of people usually have the aspect of race in the back of their minds when making decisions or when they realize that they may be in a situation that is predominantly run by a certain race. One thing that I do not understand is how Mormons believed that blacks were not as worthy as whites to hold major positions in Mormonism and become priests because they believed that their dark skin meant they were some how on the same level as the devil with his black skin. I find it interesting that as America slowly got over racism the Mormons made changes to their religious beliefs concerning it as well. I don't understand why they let society influence their religious decisions and beliefs.
ReplyDelete