Mormons believed that the United States was divinely created to facilitate their perfect expression of Christianity. Distinctively American ideology was absorbed into Mormon theology and American social values permeated the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From the nation’s inception, varying degrees of racism have found expression in that American ideology. Consequently, it is not surprising that racial discrimination was initially present in Mormon religious beliefs. The relationship between Mormonism and racism after 1978 reflects the church’s attempt to reconcile aspects of its inherently racist theology with the evolution of American social values through a reinterpretation of that doctrine.
Armand Mauss’ All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage illuminates the origin of the racism that is expressed in Mormon theology and attempts to make a distinction between socially tolerant Mormons and their prejudiced religious beliefs. It is essential to note that African Americans were always allowed to practice Mormonism; the issue was their right to the priesthood guaranteed to all male Mormons. In 1852, Brigham Young formally declared that blacks were not privy to access to the priesthood based on their African descent. This fundamentally racist assertion was buttressed by additional presidential proclamations that culminated in 1931 when Joseph Fielding Smith “synthesized and codified the entire framework of Mormon racist teaching” (Mauss 217). The racist justification for the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood espoused by Smith’s book endured until a revelation refuted it in 1978.
Beyond clarifying the origin of Mormon racist theology, Mauss develops a counterintuitive thesis: despite supporting explicitly racist religious doctrines, Mormons are no more prejudiced than the average American. Using quantitative data derived from several surveys of different Mormon wards, Mauss demonstrates that Mormons’ attitude towards race is the same as the rest of the country. Conformity to Mormon orthodoxy leads to religious, not social, hostility towards African Americans. Mauss therefore proves that the Mormons’ support for a racist doctrine stems from their devotion to their faith, not inherent racism.
The revelation in 1978 that denounced racism in Mormon and allowed African Americans to receive that priesthood was delivered by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. The Apostle declared that this alteration of the ingrained theology was the product of a reinterpretation of Mormon scripture and part of God’s overall plan for the Mormons. A revelation from the Holy Spirit “added a new flood of intelligence and light” to the subject and inspired a major shift in Mormon understanding of God’s wills (McConkie 3).
In the time following the official renunciation of racism by the Mormon church, new issues concerning race have presented themselves. Foremost among these, according to O. Kendall White Jr. and Daryl White’s Negotiating cultural and social contradictions; interracial dating and marriage among African American Mormons, is interracial marriages, whether between Mormons or between a Mormon and a non-Mormon. Though the church officially renounced racism, Mormon leaders actively discourage miscegenation. The emphasis put on sealed marriages, now open to African Americans, has highlighted the relatively small number of black Mormons and made finding a black Mormon partner difficult. These teachings and a predominance of white church members bring African American Mormons to an impasse; any possible solution requires the violation of at least one of the church’s commandments.
Is Mauss’ determination that an inherently racist religion does not produce racists valid? What are the implications of the idea that reevaluation of a doctrine can lead to reinterpretation in the context of Mormon faith? Although African Americans can now receive the priesthood, does the LDS church actively attempt to integrate the faithful?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The declaration of a certain sentiment is inherently different than its practice. Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declared that its institutional race-based segregation has ended, the origins and emotions associated with it have not suddenly disappeared. Mauss touches upon this when he integrates other sociologists’ studies on the “distinction between prejudice and discrimination” and the differences between “beliefs” and “actions” (Mauss, 222). The degree to which “prejudice” and “beliefs” are held tend to affect the “discrimination” and “action”, but it is not necessary that the latter are expressed. The Mormon Church no longer sanctions racist practices, but it does not actively encourage race-equality. This can be seen in its policies concerning interracial marriage. White Mormons still look down upon those of African descent whether they refuse to marry Black Mormons or recognize mixed kids. Overall, I think it is pretty clear that while the Church has taken a giant step towards race equality, that equality is most nominal. Prejudice doesn’t simply disappear; it evanesces.
ReplyDeleteWhile "beliefs" and "actions" are two distinct entities, the two tend to be closely related. In a group as religious as the Mormon community, followers are very likely to act upon their beliefs because of their faith. Practicing Mormons dedicate themselves to following the requirements of their faith, so the existence of racist teachings in the faith inspire them to carry out these teachings in their life. However, the Mormon faith also preaches respect for all humanity, which would inspire compassion even for those not deemed "equal" by the Church.
ReplyDeleteThe compassionate side of Mormonism won out in the end with the revelation in 1978 stating that God "denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (McConkie 1). The Mormon faith developed in a period of racial tension in the United States, and some of these tensions carried into theological doctrine. As times changed in the United States, the Mormon teachings on race and ethnicity changed as well, promoting equality for all.
The re-interpretation of passages into new doctrines is traditionally used by religious sects to adapt to changing environments. I believe it is a sign of progress, as no religion can remain static and survive the wheels of history. Times change, people change. What once was acceptable and natural loses that status once new ideas are injected into the environment. The remarkable trait of the Mormons is McConkie’s quote saying, “forget everything that I have said…or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world” (McConkie 3). Reinterpretation and new revelations keep a religion alive. The Constitution was hailed as the greatest government document precisely because its framers did not plan on writing the most perfect and timeless legislation. They anticipated changes and welcomed the posterity to contribute to and improve the document, thus it has life and longevity due to its adaptability. The Mormon religion did the same here. As faith changes with the addition of new knowledge, less exists to contradict with beliefs of the secular world. New interpretations based on the influx of information are crucial to the continued existence of a religion. People change with the times, and so does their faith.
ReplyDeleteThese various nuances and interpretations have an answer in a work produced by a popular entertainer, namely, "Religilous". The triumphal concluding scene is of Bill Maar on site at Megido on the southern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon, declaring that so long as people continue their willful way of believing in fantasy and nonsense, the world will come to an end as predicted, either from catastrophic pollution such as fracking, carbon emissions, and nuclear waste, or from a war with some of the 17,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled around the world in fallible hands. If we don't have a majority of people leaning toward the left and taking responsibility for themselves and the survival of a habitable planet, it seems likely that we are facing species extinction. Sayonara.
ReplyDelete