Mormon apostle's racist letter to George Romney

[xixxvmcm85]

It would be nice if there were sources posted for those quotes so people can see where they come from, and read them in context.

I wonder if a certain ‘celebrity’ has ever read any of that? It does give one pause as to why he’s going to Israel, if he has. :ehh:

I was waiting to see if anyone would go for the bait, but fair enough. All of those quotes come from either Catholic hierarchy, Catholic episcopal councils, or Catholic Doctors of the Church. I was trying to make a subtle point to remind my fellow Catholics that we in glass churches ought not to throw stones at the edifices of bigotry of other religions.

Quote #1
St. John Chrysostom Six Homilies Against the Jews

Quote #2
Pope Innocent III Epistle to the Count of Nevers

Quote #3
Pope St. Pius V The Jewish Race

Quote #4
Pope Benedict IV A Quo Primum

Quote #5
Council of Nicea Canon XXI

Quote #6
Tertullian A Reply to the Jews

Quote #7
St. John Chrysostom Six Homilies Against the Jews

Quote #8
Pope Gregory IX Epistle to the Hierarchy in Germany

Quote #9
Council of the Lateran III Canon XXVI

 

[RebeccaJ]

None of which are comparable to a person claiming to be a prophet and speaking for God.

“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”” (Declaration by the First Presidency under George Albert Smith, 1949)

 

[lax16]

None of which are comparable to a person claiming to be a prophet and speaking for God.

“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”” (Declaration by the First Presidency under George Albert Smith, 1949)

Good post. Did any Catholics ever claim that they were speaking as a direct commandment of the Lord?
NO!

 

[xixxvmcm85]

None of which are comparable to a person claiming to be a prophet and speaking for God.

Neither was this LDS Apostle in this letter. He even said as much in the opening paragraph.

“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”” (Declaration by the First Presidency under George Albert Smith, 1949)

This would by very relevant if this thread was about the Priesthood Ban, but it isn’t.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Good post. Did any Catholics ever claim that they were speaking as a direct commandment of the Lord?
NO!

None may have said it in such exact terms, but you should notice that the many Popes and Doctors of the Church when pontificating on their anti-Semitic views would cite scripture and appeal to the apparent “continuous tradition of the Church” in support of them, which itself is but only a few hairs away from the common understanding of infallible doctrine per the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Furthermore you’ll notice I cited Ecumenical Councils which are without a doubt the premier source of infallible teaching. This is precisely why so many dissident “Traditionalists” claim that the Church’s current teachings about the Jews are heretical.

 

[lax16]

Neither was this LDS Apostle in this letter. He even said as much in the opening paragraph.

Hello xixxvmcm85 - The letter clearly states that Stapley is reminding Romeny to review the LDS Church’s teachings on the subject of Civil Rights.
Paragraph four states that Stapley wants Romney to read the prophet JS teachings on the subject and then to give his position “some real thought.”

Obviously, Stapley is not an apostle, but is reminding a fellow member about teachings of the LDS church, calling them decrees of the Lord.

This would by very relevant if this thread was about the Priesthood Ban, but it isn’t.

Please read the first full paragraph on page 2 - it does tie in “the curse of the colored race” and their denial of the priesthood and how it is up to Lord to change direction when considering the privileges of the Negro (read civil rights).

So while the letter is about civil rights the author does explain that the black race is cursed and until the Lord changes it, they would be denied the priesthood and then goes on to tie it in to the “negro problem of this country.”

Unless you have read the “little booklet entitled Mormonism and the Negro” we are not sure if the priesthood ban was discussed or not. It was enclosed in the letter and the contents have not been made available for us to read.

 

[lax16]

None may have said it in such exact terms, but you should notice that the many Popes and Doctors of the Church when pontificating on their anti-Semitic views would cite scripture and appeal to the apparent “continuous tradition of the Church” in support of them, which itself is but only a few hairs away from the common understanding of infallible doctrine per the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Furthermore you’ll notice I cited Ecumenical Councils which are without a doubt the premier source of infallible teaching. This is precisely why so many dissident “Traditionalists” claim that the Church’s current teachings about the Jews are heretical.

Interesting points and food for thought.

Thanks!

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Hey lax16,

The letter clearly states that Stapley is reminding Romeny to review the LDS Church’s teachings on the subject of Civil Rights.

I re-read the letter just now to be sure that I wasn’t mistaken, but again I cannot find anywhere the Apostle mentions any official LDS teaching concerning Civil Rights, only does he try to persuade Gov. Romney to oppose them due to the LDS teachings concerning Blacks in general (and more specifically with respect to the Priesthood Ban). Granted, the LDS Church at this time did take up the social cause to oppose them in their official capacity, but as far as I know they never made it a matter of teaching requiring fidelity by the members. This especially seems to be the case given that the Apostle (in the capacity of Gov. Romney’s friend) is urging him to reconsider rather than giving him the ultimatum of recanting his support for civil rights or facing excommunication (which most certainly would have been the case if he were supporting a cause that went against a specific teaching of the church, such as priesthood ordination for Blacks).

My father was alive at this time and he told me many times growing up how much grief he was given for his support for Civil Rights (and later the ERA for women) though he was never stripped of a calling or failed a worthiness interview for the Temple.

Paragraph four states that Stapley wants Romney to read the prophet JS teachings on the subject and then to give his position “some real thought.”

Exactly. Persuasive, but not condemnatory. The excerpts from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith argue for segregation for fear that if granted full equality Blacks would turn around and oppress Whites. Joseph Smith concludes by saying “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.” This is his opinion, howbeit strongly held, and doesn’t seem to be a matter of official teaching, analogous to the non-infallible decrees of a Pope (remember that Mormonism has a similar distinction between prophetic utterances and utterances by someone who just so happens to be a prophet, though the Mormon distinction is as far as I know not easy to make since no framework for it has been constructed unlike in Catholicism).

The cited passages from The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Vol. 2 speak strictly of slavery and essentially make two points: (1) that slavery in of itself technically isn’t evil since it is after all advocated for in the Bible, and (2) that despite the moral issues of slavery abolitionist Mormons should not use them as a wedge between them and Southern Mormons. In other words “Slavery really isn’t all that bad, and can’t we all just shut up about this now? It’s giving everybody a headache”. I’m not fully understanding why Stapley even brought this up.

Obviously, Stapley is not an apostle, but is reminding a fellow member about teachings of the LDS church, calling them decrees of the Lord.

Stapley was an apostle. He was succeeded by the recently departed James E. Faust.

Unless you have read the “little booklet entitled Mormonism and the Negro” we are not sure if the priesthood ban was discussed or not. It was enclosed in the letter and the contents have not been made available for us to read.

I don’t have such a book but I’ll try looking for it as the copyright has likely expired and is probably part of the public domain (and thus easily searchable online). Nonetheless, I have read the cited excerpts of History of the Church and The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and they just don’t seem to make the case for me that segregation was a matter of official doctrine of the Church anymore than the historically Catholic position of segregation of, persecution of, and expulsion of the Jews is a Catholic dogma. If you read in full the ecclesiastical documents I cited earlier (especially the Papal epistles) the similarity is striking to the LDS sources thus mentioned in that each begin with something that actually is promulgated doctrine of their respective churches subsequently used in apology for peripherally related matters.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

FYI,

Joseph Smith did anoint blacks to the priesthood, and even into the church leadership (the LDS equivalent to the Catholic Cardinal). It was Brigham Young who set the policy of not bringing more blacks into the priesthood, although he didn’t take away the priesthood from people that had it before.

Joseph Smith was also the first US citizen on record for trying to adopt a black child into his own family.

Whatever his other flaws, Joseph Smith wasn’t a racist.

Brigham Young, on the other hand … was possibly even more racist than the Apostle Peter, who, according to Paul, refused to eat with Gentiles even after the revelation where God told Peter to let Gentiles into the church.

I’m not really surprised by the letter, nor by the sentiments of the author of it. Racism existed as much, if not more, back then as it does now, and sadly, it wasn’t just coming from Mormons. But, it was clearly taught by their church that blacks were considered to be far ‘inferior’ to whites. The thing that bothered me most was that he portrayed God as being the promoter of that kind of thought by claiming that it was inspired by Him in a ‘revelation’ to Joseph Smith. That in itself would certainly be enough to give me pause to question if any of his ‘revelations’ were coming from his own personal prejudices, rather than from God.

If I were a Mormon, I might want to at least reassess my beliefs in the founder of the church, if not in the entire religion. It certainly makes it more clear to me that Joseph Smith was the one that created the church from his own delusions and twisted ideas about God, including the promotion of his own personal prejudices in his ‘doctrines’, as if God would ever approve of such prejudices.

Early Christians certainly didn’t hold onto any such prejudice when they were spreading the Gospel, as their examples of preaching to every kind of people in that area of the world, including to those in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa, shows. They also established churches there, with their own Priests and Bishops that were Baptized and ordained for that purpose. How does the Mormon faith explain those facts, clearly established in the Bible?

God is colorblind when it comes to His children. He created them all. He doesn’t separate them by their outward appearances that are a result of their ecological area and climate, but by what’s hidden in their hearts. This letter clearly shows a completely different view of God’s love than what the Bible teaches.

JMHO

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Wow, very enlightening.

While he does state he is not speaking officially for the lds church, you have to wonder how that thinking impacted his duties/service to them.

You don’t have to wonder. It states right at the top of the link above.

In the months after receiving the letter, George Romney stepped up his support for civil rights.

You also have to wonder why a letter supposedly reporting “personal” views was written on church letterhead.

Same reason that Judges, Congress Reps and officials of other churches sometimes pull the same trick. It’s called abuse of authority. If abuse of authority never occurs in your church, then I congratulate you. God’s not done with us yet.

I also notice that Mr. Romney provided a hand written response to the letter. I would have loved to have read that as well.

Me too. But I doubt I’ll ever see it, even though our families are close. Like many loyal Catholics, Mormons tend to keep their disagreements with church authorities very private, between themselves and the authority.

The official LDS position on the priesthood ban is that it’s over. Was it originally of God? I doubt it, as do many other LDS. We don’t know for certain, but there’s absolutely no revelation in the record saying that blacks should not have the priesthood. Joseph Smith brought blacks into the priesthood and even into the church leadership.

But to say definitively that the racist policy wasn’t from God, would require yet another revelation. If we made up revelations in response to political demands and exigencies, then sure, I’d love to hear the church say that we were wrong, that we never should have denied blacks the priesthood. But we can’t say that unless God says it.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith argue for segregation for fear that if granted full equality Blacks would turn around and oppress Whites. Joseph Smith concludes by saying “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.”

Unfortunately, the so-called “teachings of Joseph Smith” are lousy with hearsay from journals. Hearsay within hearsay. And the way that some Mormons today sometimes misrepresent church authorities to justify their own opinions, I’d not be surprised if those were made up.

What we do know is that Joseph Smith was the first white person in the US known to have tried to adopt a black person into his own family, that he ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood and made him a member of the quorum of the seventies, which is the LDS equivalent of a Catholic Cardinal.

What does “national equalization” mean??

 

[RebeccaJ]

What we do know is that Joseph Smith was the first white person in the US known to have tried to adopt a black person into his own family,

If you’re referring to Jane Elizabeth Manning James, you left out a significant portion of her life story and experiences in trying to be sealed to first her husband, Isaac, who Joseph Smith had ordained. Her petitions were denied by Brigham Young, because Isaac was Black. Second, she tried to be sealed to Joseph and Emma Smith, as having lived with them for a time, they had promised that she could be sealed as a child to them. Brigham Young agreed that she could be sealed to Joseph Smith as a servant. She was sealed as a “Servitor”, she promising to be eternally obedient to Joseph Smith.

 

[Holly3278]

I am just curious but was the Catholic Church a leader in the civil rights movement?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Unfortunately, the so-called "teachings of Joseph
What we do know is that Joseph Smith was the first white person in the US known to have tried to adopt a black person into his own family, that he ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood and made him a member of the quorum of the seventies, which is the LDS equivalent of a Catholic Cardinal.

Rebecca responded:

If you’re referring to Jane Elizabeth Manning James, you left out a significant portion of her life story and experiences in trying to be sealed to first her husband, Isaac, who Joseph Smith had ordained. Her petitions were denied by Brigham Young, because Isaac was Black. Second, she tried to be sealed to Joseph and Emma Smith, as having lived with them for a time, they had promised that she could be sealed as a child to them. Brigham Young agreed that she could be sealed to Joseph Smith as a servant. She was sealed as a “Servitor”, she promising to be eternally obedient to Joseph Smith.

I indeed was referring to Jane Elizabeth Manning James, and I certainly did not leave out part of the story.

You’re telling the story of what Brigham Young did decades later.

That story has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Joseph Smith was racist.

I’ve already conceded that Brigham Young was racist.

The church has already reversed Brigham Young’s horrid decision, and Elizabeth Manning James is now sealed as Joseph Smith’s daughter, as Joseph and Elizabeth intended.

It’s a shameful tragedy that the sealing didn’t occur until after Sister Elizabeth was dead. But I believe that the church has the power to bind on heaven as on Earth.

But you cannot, in any sort of honesty, attribute that tragedy to Joseph Smith.

I stand by my statement that Smith was about as enlightened in racial matters as any white American of his generation. And his actions on the record make it very unlikely that the hearsay attributed to him in “teachings” actually came from him.

I also “left out” the story of what Brigham Young did to Elijah Abel, sending him on mission after mission to Canada so the saints wouldn’t see that one of their church leaders was black, but that’s in the link I provided. And like the (true) story you told, that has no bearing whatsoever on whether Joseph Smith was a racist.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca responded:

I indeed was referring to Jane Elizabeth Manning James, and I certainly did not leave out part of the story.

You’re telling the story of what Brigham Young did decades later.

That story has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Joseph Smith was racist.

I’ve already conceded that Brigham Young was racist.

The church has already reversed Brigham Young’s horrid decision, and Elizabeth Manning James is now sealed as Joseph Smith’s daughter, as Joseph and Elizabeth intended.

It’s a shameful tragedy that the sealing didn’t occur until after Sister Elizabeth was dead. But I believe that the church has the power to bind on heaven as on Earth.

But you cannot, in any sort of honesty, attribute that tragedy to Joseph Smith.

I stand by my statement that Smith was about as enlightened in racial matters as any white American of his generation. And his actions on the record make it very unlikely that the hearsay attributed to him in “teachings” actually came from him.

I agree that Young changed Smith’s religion, in some ways, quite dramatically. I don’t see that Smith was enlightened, but held views generally held by whites in the North. But the fact is, Young’s teachings regarding race were taught and believed by the LDS Church and its followers for 100 years or more.

I don’t know how you can tell which teachings in “The Teachings Of Joseph Smith” are hearsay, or not. Was it compiled by LDS, who were alive in Smith’s time? Why does the LDS Church site from it often, if it is nothing more than hearsay? Has the LDS Church declared or taught that the teachings you are calling hearsay are heretical, or in error?

And last, if Young and other prophets who followed him were so wrong in their teachings regarding race, how can you believe they were prophets?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I agree that Young changed Smith’s religion, in some ways, quite dramatically. But the fact is, Young’s teachings regarding race were taught and believed by the LDS Church and its followers for 100 years or more.

Actually, no, they weren’t. They were believed by some mormons. Not by others. None of the views every became doctrine, because they were never approved by the full Quorum of the Twelve, nor were they ever approved by the general body of the church (“Common Consent”)

That means that the church essentially rejected acceptance of those racist opinions as established doctrine. Yes, it’s sad enough that we didn’t actually reject the doctrines as total anathema until 1978. And I don’t question that there are imperfections that remain in the church today. God’s not done with us yet.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, no, they weren’t. They were believed by some mormons. Not by others. None of the views every became doctrine, because they were never approved by the full Quorum of the Twelve, nor were they ever approved by the general body of the church (“Common Consent”)

That means that the church essentially rejected acceptance of those racist opinions as established doctrine. Yes, it’s sad enough that we didn’t actually reject the doctrines as total anathema until 1978. And I don’t question that there are imperfections that remain in the church today. God’s not done with us yet.

Do you believe what your current prophet teaches at General Conference and what is printed in the Ensign magazine. I ask because I didn’t think those sources were questionable, and LDS in the time of racist teachings didn’t question the same or similar sources.

I have never seen that the LDS Church has said that the teachings were wrong, but rather, has taken the stance that the world wasn’t ready for racial equality. Which, I’ll say, has its own problems. First being, we don’t dictate by our bad behavior what God does or doesn’t do. Second, it presents an idea that we’re blown around by popular opinion, rather than held firmly in Truth. God doesn’t withhold Truth. And Third, Jesus made it clear that the Gospel is for all people and nations, there was no exceptions in that statement.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

if Young and other prophets who followed him were so wrong in their teachings regarding race, how can you believe they were prophets?

Same as I believe that Moses was a prophet even though he committed premeditated murder of the Egyptian, and even though he disobeyed God with regard to the circumcision of his son, and even though he stated blasphemously that he, rather than God, had brought water from the rock.

There are other considerations that establish that BY was a prophet, despite his imperfections. But to list them here would seem like proselytizing, which is against the forum rules, and as a mormon, I’m committed to keeping the law of the land.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Same as I believe that Moses was a prophet even though he committed premeditated murder of the Egyptian, and even though he disobeyed God with regard to the circumcision of his son, and even though he stated blasphemously that he, rather than God, had brought water from the rock.

Moses found forgiveness. He performed a lot of miracles. What are the miracles that Young performed, and was he repentant of his racial views?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Do you believe what your current prophet teaches at General Conference and what is printed in the Ensign magazine. I ask because I didn’t think those sources were questionable, and LDS in the time of racist teachings didn’t question the same or similar sources.

You’re right that we don’t *publicly *question the living prophet. If I was in Moses’ camp, I wouldn’t go pointing out his errors, either. That’s evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed. But they are fair game when they die, otherwise the Bible wouldn’t regale us with stories of the failings of the prophets and the apostles.

Likewise, the apostles who disagreed with Brigham Young didn’t publicly speak up against some of his wackier theories. But when it came time to vote on whether to make them doctrine, there was at least one holdout on all of them. (I can’t remember whether it was Orson Hyde or Orson Pratt). And the quorum needs to be unanimous on such matters. Like Jesus told us, “if ye are not one, ye are not mine.”

If the quorum had approved Young’s opinions, then they would have gone on for approval from the General body of the church, through a process called “common consent.”

Today, there’s one proclamation that’s been approved by the First Presidency, and by the full quorum of the Twelve, but has not yet been submitted to common consent. That’s the proclamation on the family, i.e. the church position on defending marriage.

The last time a doctrine was submitted for common consent was 1978, when the priesthood was extended to all worthy male members regardless of race.

Does that answer your question?