Last week, Lester Bush spoke at the Black, White, and Mormon Conference at the University of Utah. I posted a longer version at my blog, but wanted to highlight some of the cool notes from his address. (I typed as fast as I could–some of my notes are a little cryptic.) Paul Reeve introduced him.
Reeve – Bush was groundbreaking because he tied the ban to Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith. Bush discredited the previous Missouri Thesis {which blamed the ban on slavery issues associated in Missouri}. Ed Kimball acknowledged Spencer W. Kimball read Bush’s article, and it impacted Kimball’s thinking. In 1963, Kimball acknowledged an open attitude about the ban, and than the ban was a possible error that the Lord might forgive.
Looking back, and forward, Mormonism 42 years later.
Bush – what has changed, stayed same, steps still need to occur?
What has changed – easiest. All good. 1978 revelation. Ordination of blacks to priesthood and HP and temple ordinances. 12 yrs later, 1st black GA, recently 2 more. In 1980, the LDS Church entered black Africa in Nigeria. There are now stakes in 5 African countries outside south Africa. Far exceeded my expectations of what was possible in 1973. After 37 years, no African American General Authorities.
What has changed? There is much more primary source material now. I’m amazed at new material available via internet. Joseph Smith Papers, Wilford Woodruff journal, David O. McKay diaries. Many periodicals searchable. Download to computer. Now studies online. Transformative developments. Internet.
New understandings available, avalanche of published material. Once there were 97 articles published on the subject between 1900-73, 2/3 of which was published since 1965. Since 1973, attention has intensified. 18 publications. 30 in 1980s, 36 since 2000. 118 books/articles since 1973. Most important now.
1973, had enough to get basic outline, but publications since offer new light. Some info pub after 1973, but continues. More information available about early blacks like Samuel Chambers, Jane James. Warner McCary, Elijah Able, Walker Lewis.
…..
Spencer W. Kimball gave it some some attn., still conjectural. Ed concluded in 1963 letter that prophets 133 years had maintained ban instituted by Joseph Smith. If this wasn’t true, then perhaps Lord could change and release and forgive possible error. Suggested flexibility on part of Kimball. If I had known this back then, I would have believed reflected language of Ed rather than his father.
In public statements Pres. Kimball seemed confident, quoted Abraham, always responded with traditional explanations. After ordained 12th president of church, he responded to reporter that there would probably be no change. Stated it was a policy of Lord, he know of no change, but subject to revelations. Very similar 2 months later on Today Show. Did not anticipate change. Lord will reveal. Despite conservative responses.
….
National attn. 2012 Washington Post Randy Bott who gave reasonable summary of 1970s beliefs. Cain killed Abel, Egyptus black, married Ham, cursed and barred from priesthood by Noah. Book of Abraham says all descendants were black and barred. 1949, church leaders said ban resulted from premortal existence. Many believed less valiant, fence sitters. This theory has fallen out of favor. Bott continued that Lord gives all he sees fit, compared blacks to a young child given keys to car. Blacks not ready and that the ban was the greatest blessing to blacks.
As appalling as it was to read, I felt bad for Bott. He presented authoritative views of past leaders, and it hadn’t been disavowed. Not different than Mormon Doctrine which was still published until 2010, and was still sold in 2012 until an African American member purchased remaining copies to get it off the market.
Church issued rebuttal, prompted by media, and said positions of Bott not representative of Church views. There was a restriction, but not known why, how it began. It ended decades ago. Some explained reasons, but this was just speculation, not doctrine. Church not bound by speculation. Condemn racism by all in and out of church.
Rebuttal was disingenuous when stated it was not known why, how, dismissal to speculation. In 2013 carried new intro to OD 2. More candid, acknowledged some history, some blacks ordained, but early it stopped. No clear insights into origins. Leaders felt revelation needed. Came to Pres Kimball and confirmed in June 1 , 1978 which removed all restrictions. By far most forthright later years.
…..
Some speculations after the fact to explain basis for doctrine, not the ban but to why descendants of Cain denied. Pre-existence.
No one had been free of understandings of age. Wisdom discredited and abandoned. Good thing. Not global knowledge but global accomplishments. Age all more remarkable. Examples of ideas doctrines did not survive. Favorite was Orson Pratt, brightest early leader. He favored giving blacks the right to vote, opposed Brigham Youn’s advocacy of servitude, and curses across generations.
…….
Not until 1960s did anyone argue to end ban. Hugh B Brown, proposed twice, 1963. He tried unsuccessful to allow blacks to have Aaronic Priesthood in order to open mission to Africa. Curious idea, Brown’s thinly disguised first step. In 1969 tried to end ban altogether. Brown thought McKay thought ban was not of divine origin.
….
Final analysis, 3 questions. What was basis for ban? Ask Brigham Young, he was the man who implemented the ban. He said descendants of Cain were ineligible. Why Young? Joseph Smith seemed to hold same beliefs regarding black ancestry. Many not get closer. Differing personal beliefs in 1847 with interracial marriage, masonic restrictions, led BY to new conclusion.
….
Consequences of revealing historical records? A collates over last 40 years.
Complications. Some affirming. Important to them, wonderful. Didn’t get commendation from church. 10 years later, 5 years after revelation, Mark E Peterson was still upset because I had written that article. Wanted stake president to take action against me. Stake President talked to me, and said there was no problem.
Black women couldn’t go to the temple, and we are still leaving this out of the conversation. When we talk about ban, we do not acknowledge implications on black Mormon womens. Can you speak to that?
Been a while, blacks, including women or men ultimately allowed temple for proxy baptism, not anything else. Not clearly written out. Women denied because priesthood ordinances, hooked up to black men no priesthood. There was a time in 60s and 70s when black women and men or women allowed to head auxiliaries at ward level, think it was tactical to distinguish not priesthood holder. In wake of (may be wrong) that ended with priesthood revelation came. Harmful for women. Sorry for floundering on answer.
At some point someone will write about history of women and priesthood. I believe it is inevitable women will get priesthood, based on previous familiarity. I’m not sure why they want it, not sure why men want either.
Medicine, evolution on church guidance way society progresses. Path here is so clear that seems impossible that not going to be similar progression in church.
….
Brigham Young justified ban saying black men were sons of Cain. Yet the 2nd Articcle of Faith says men are punished for own sins. How did the leaders reconcile this contradiction?
Havent’ seen it. Paul Reeve’s book touches on that. Orson Pratt didn’t think curse passed down the line. There is a section in the D&C that says a heinous thing, curse through generations. There is a little mixed message, doesn’t make sense. Reason speculated because recognized individual issue, other fact than son of someone else. Closest attempt to make argument, Joseph F Smith, had a notion of patriarchal lines, felt strong lineage. People lined up under big patriarchs preexistence. Whole group of spirits under Cain in pre-existence. When killed, they remained faithful to lineage, First Presidency discussion. Failure to perform, more neutral one. It’s kind of like the saying “Be true to your school.”
Not sure we had same God, my God would not do that to me. You mentioned the Brazil effect on Priesthood restriction. Can you elaborate on that?
There was a key period in 1970s, building temple in Brazil. Faithful black members were contributing. Complex genetics. Harder they looked, more complex. Had really faithful members that clearly would not have access to temple, but were building the temple. There was the story of a man and wife who sold jewelry, made other sacrifices knowing that they couldn’t enter. Kimball had angst. Compassionate man, internationally oriented man. That’s what I’m referring to. Set aside history, really concrete issue, maybe South Africa, not hypothetical. 1970s very real.
What are your comments or questions?
Wheat & Tares 
“until an African American member purchased remaining copies to get it off the market”
Yikes! It took that to get it off the market!
Interesting summary. Thanks MH.
Wilford Woodruff’s diaries are available online? Do you know where? No name given for the black member who purchased copies of MD? Did he say whether the person prefers to remain anonymous, or is that just assumed? Interesting to see the recognition over the last couple of years that it was a priesthood and temple ban, that women were affected by this, too.
Thanks MH for the recap and for pointing this out.
And in case Lester happens to read this – THANK YOU! For your willingness to say that the emperor has no clothes. Your example has helped me become more healthy by speaking up in church when I see things that are WAY less than perfect. You have inspired me.
I don’t know who the black member was who bought all of the copies of Mormon doctrine, Mr Bush did not specify.I was also curious to hear about the Wilford Woodruff journals, and was surprised to hear they were available to.
FYI the faithful African American member purchased 515 copies of the book to get it out of circulation. I don’t know who it was but must have had $5k that could be spent to eradicate racism in the church. Too bad the church didn’t just pull it on its own.
Kristine – Not to bee too cynical here, but it is going to take a lot more than $5K and the removal of a book to eradicate racism in the church. I don’t think that is what you were trying to say. I am also not trying to bash the church, but it is human nature to have an us/them mentality. It can be hard for the “who is included in ‘us’ ” to be drawn as big as God would want.
Wonder how McKay’s revelation fits in?
That the policy would change but he would not be the one to do it?
Steve, nobody knew about that until much later. And I don’t think it was considered a revelation, especially in comparison to what happened with Kimball. I also don’t think it was as specific as your comment implies.
Do we still claim black Africans are descendants of Cain? I think the essay says no but every leader I’ve spoken to says yes.
Interesting sentence in there about women and the priesthood, he obviously sees it as a similar problem.
It just really struck me reading his biography.
And I really believe it was not widely known, or even circulated at all as his notes went with his secretary and not into the archives. It may well have first surfaced in any form when the biography was published.
Though see: “Within weeks of his return from South Africa, McKay met privately
with Sterling McMurrin. In the course of their conversation, and to McMurrin’s
surprise, McKay told him that the church position on ordination
of blacks was “policy,” not “doctrine,” and that the practice would
someday be changed.8″
Click to access Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf
But maybe I need to reread the biography.
Geoff – the essay just talks about how the curse of Cain (and curse of Ham) was used to justify both slavery and priesthood restrictions in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries (not just by Mormons). The essay repudiates any theory which espouses that dark skin is a sign of divine disfavor. It does not, however, mention anything about who is, or is not, the ancestor of black Africans. Due to a common literalist idea that all black Africans descend from Ham, members feel justified in declaring all black Africans are descendants of Cain through Ham’s wife, Egyptus.
A decent summary of the logical flaws are detailed in a 2012 FAIRMormon essay “Dispelling the Myth of the ‘Curse of Cain'” by Mike Parker. Maybe you can print it off and hand it those leaders you’ve been speaking to…
Geoff, the Curses of Cain and Ham were pretty well entrenched in the LDS Church. As Bush says, the curses were promoted as an explanation for all black people since the days of Brigham Young, and were often quoted by people in Mormon Doctrine, which many erroneously believed was really doctrine. As MaryAnn says, it has been repudiated, but old habits are going to die hard.
Steve, I loved the McKay biography. I’m familiar with the quote you referenced. In my post on the priesthood ban, McKay was asked to tour missions in 1921. Greg Prince said (in my Priesthood ban post),
then there’s this:
Steve, I also have a transcript of a conversation where Brad Kramer speculates on why McKay got a “no” answer. From my post, Confronting Racism Part 2.
We need Margaret Young on this conversation.
Lester Bush’s address is now available on Youtube:
To see all the videos at the conference, go to
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcAx2zjqUSe0cdco7xqeiWQ
To answer #2’s question’s, I haven’t been able to find President Woodruff’s journals online anywhere.
They were originally all published in a 9 volume set in the 1980’s by Signature books I guess:
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/04/wilford-woodruffs-journal-1833-1898-typescript/
Haven’t seen any for sale online or ebay.
I’d give my left ear for it. I’ll have to check a few old institutes this fall and winter to see if have a copy. If anyone sees it online, PLEASE POST!