Posted on Leave a comment

LDS Leaders on Interracial Marriage (Part 1 of 4)

I’m excited to introduce Dr. Taylor Petry, an associate professor at Kalamazoo College, and editor for the Dialogue Journal.  In this first segment, we’ll talk about how LDS leaders have changed how they talk about race issues, especially with regards to interracial marriage over the 20th century.  Is this similar to possible changes regarding LGBT issues?

Taylor: The typical way that we have told the history of the priesthood ban has been primarily around focusing on race as the exclusive category.  But when I started looking at the conversations that were happening and what church leaders were saying about race in the 1950s and 60s, I saw immediately that marriage was one of the big concerns. Why were they in favor of segregation? Why did they oppose civil rights? Why did they even have church policies that would prevent marriage in the temple?

Because they were really concerned about interracial sex. They thought that this was a big, big problem. We have this whole ideology about race and racialized groups, that this group was destined to do this, and this group was destined to do that. They worried that interracial mixing would dilute the sort of divine designs for those particular races. So I immediately saw that the question of race was really entwined with the with questions of sexuality. Again, as a sort of modern parallel to issues around same sex relationships today, I also wanted to show that the question of ‘who could marry who’ wasn’t just an issue that we dealt with in polygamy. It was an issue that we dealt with in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and even up until the last decade, we still were publishing manuals that had quotes from Spencer W. Kimball discouraging interracial marriage.

So the question of who can marry who, what kinds of couples are allowed in the church, in some cases, socially, and then in some cases ecclesiastically, was not just an old question, it was a pretty new question that we’ve dealt with. So I wanted to tell the history of how we worked through that particular issue as a way, not explicitly, but a parallel to the kinds of questions that we’re dealing with [regarding] same sex relationships, too.

Of course, things have changed pretty radically with regards to interracial marriage since the 1960s.

GT:  I think what was interesting to me is, especially in the ‘50s, and 60s, that interracial marriage would bring about the downfall of civilization. Now we have a black general authority, which was unheard of in the 50s and 60s. Peter Johnson is who I’m talking about, but he’s married to a white woman. And we have an apostle, [Gerrit] Gong.  He’s Asian, and he has a white wife as well. So, apparently, we’ve completely changed on this issue about whether interracial marriage is a good thing. I think you also mentioned Mia Love.  She’s a black Congresswoman, and she has a white husband.  So, talk about how we flip from, “This is the downfall of civilization,” to totally embracing it now.

Taylor:  Spencer W. Kimball, who had been a big advocate of the Indian Placement Program, was out there as the biggest opponent of interracial marriage. The same thing happens when we’re setting up BYU-Hawaii or whatever it was called back then, the Polynesian College.[1]  I forget exactly what its name was back then. But, [you get the] same thing. You get social integration.  That leads to marriages and relationships and the church is like, “Oh, this isn’t what we meant. We wanted integration, but not intermarriage.” So, there’s a lot of anxiety about that. It’s surprising that then, what are we 40-50 years later, now, General authorities who were those who were of that age when they were hearing all of these messages of:  Don’t get married, don’t be involved in interracial marriages. They ignored that advice, got married anyway and now have become general authorities. So, I think that those are some really interesting ones.

The Mia Love one I found particularly interesting because it’s not just the racial boundaries that were being blurred in her case, but also she was, of course, working. She was a working mother and not only working in a high demand job, but a high demand job that often took her out of state, as well. Yet, the church didn’t seem to have any problem with it. They promoted her on the I’m a Mormon campaign. There were newspaper articles in the Deseret News, talking about her and her relationship with her husband. So I wanted to sort of trace that shift. How do we get to today where these things aren’t problematic, when they were [problematic] to the members of the 50s and 60s?  If Joseph Fielding Smith were around today and saw what the makeup of the general authorities and the kinds of marriages that they were in, how many children they had, did they use birth control?  All of those things he would be very confused by, because he was such a vehement opponent of those practices. So I wanted to understand, again, that these aren’t–it’s not just the change from monogamy to polygamy, that’s not the only big change that we’ve made with respect to marriage and certainly not with respect to sexuality. It’s much more recent than that, that we’ve been having this conversation inside of the church about who gets to marry who and what are the rules around that and so on.

[1] It was called Church College of Hawaii in 1955.

What are your thoughts on the changing rhetoric around interracial marriage?  Check out our conversation….

By the way, I’m giving away a copy of Taylor’s book, “Tabernacles of Clay.”  If you would like to win, sign up at https://gospeltangents.com/Petrey (open to U.S. residents only)

Dr. Taylor Petrey of Kalamazoo College tells how general authorities have changed views on interracial marriage over the past 70 years. Will similar changes happen for LGBT?

Don’t miss our previous conversations with Dr. Matt Harris who covers a similar time period on race issues.

353: Impact of Protests on Apostles (Harris)

352: BYU Law School Almost Lost Accreditation (Harris)

351: Civil Rights Investigation at BYU (Harris)

350: Sports Protests Against BYU (Harris)

349: Race & Religious Minorities at BYU (Harris)

348: How Brazil Influenced Official Declaration 2 (Harris)

347: Did Nixon & Carter Pressure BYU Over Race? (Harris)

Posted on Leave a comment

Anti-Slavery Missionaries in the South (Part 5 of 8)

In 1844 when Joseph Smith was running for president of the United States, he proposed a system of gradual emancipation for all slaves.  How did that message go over in the South?  Hint:  not well.  In our next conversation, Dr. Derek Sainsbury will tell us some of the stories of these missionaries, and some of the surprising receptiveness to the message in some cases.

GT:  I think the interesting thing for me, especially I served my mission in South Carolina, so I’m very familiar with Southern Baptists and Pentecostals and all sorts of things. But, in 1844, slavery was legal and Joseph Smith is talking about freeing the slaves. I don’t think that went very well in the South.

Derek:  It didn’t. The one blind spot that I have is, as a historian with this is none of the ones that went in the deep South kept a journal.

GT:  Oh really?

Derek:  Here’s that same George Miller, a couple days later is walking and a guy stops him in the street and he says, “You best get out of here, because my slaves have been told if they see you, to lynch you, to put you up on the tree and lynch you.”  So he’s like, “hmm, I’m moving on to the next town.”

It wasn’t always violent however opposition.

Derek:  Right, but this is when it started was in the 40s, 1840, 1844. They’d have these huge barbecues and whiskey and get people to show up and listen. Well, he goes to the other end of the square and stands up on a tree trunk and starts…

GT:  The stump. That what they actually called a stump speech.

Derek:  That’s right. He starts preaching Joseph Smith, he’s not preaching the gospel. He’s doing electioneer stuff about General Joseph Smith’s run for the presidency. By the time he’s done, the entire crowd is shifted, and is listening to him. When it’s over, they’re saying, “You don’t want any of this guy’s barbecue,” and they take him to the tavern, give him a big meal. He writes about how many of them liked the ideas, even though some of them disliked, well, a lot of them disliked Joseph. This was a common thread not just in the Upper South, but everywhere.

GT:  What state was this in?

Derek:  This was Kentucky, but even as far up as in Massachusetts, in Boston, there were a lot of people that liked the ideas in the pamphlet, but not so much, Joseph. They would have these conferences where they would come up with these resolutions, for lack of a better word, and they were both Mormon and non-Mormon together, that agreed with these principles. So there was more acceptance than we really knew. Not overwhelming, but there were some out there that also didn’t like the two-party system, didn’t like the Democrats and the Whigs, were looking for another way forward.

Are you surprised to hear about some successes?  Check out our conversation….

Joseph Smith’s anti-slavery message didn’t go well in the South, but there were some surprising successes too.

Don’t miss our previous conversations….

421: Bobby Kennedy-Joseph Smith

420:  Electioneer Missionaries

419:  Mormons: The Original Swing Voters!

418:  Views of General Joseph Smith

Posted on 3 Comments

*Impact of Protests on Apostles (Part 7 of 7)

If you’d like to check out this episode, please sign up for my newsletter.  It’s completely free.  Go to GospelTangents.com/newsletter  to find out how the apostles reacted to these protests against BYU.

Matt:  President Kimball said in 1975. Let me get this right. If I don’t lift the ban, my successor won’t do it, nor will my successor’s successor. Of course, he’s talking about Benson and Mark Petersen. So that was President Kimball, saying very clearly if I don’t do this, they won’t. Harold Lee was just intractable. He refused to lift the ban and Joseph Fielding Smith, too. It’s interesting how people evolve because Elder Kimball, I don’t want to give you the sense that he’s a racial progressive. One of the things that his son talks about is my father shared some of the same prejudicial views towards black people that other people of his generation did. Clearly, that’s easy to believe if you realize that we’re all products of our environment, right?  But what’s unique about Kimball is not that he had prejudicial views, it’s how he evolved and that he saw that it was the right thing to do to further the advance of the church. That’s why I admire him so much is that he knew that there were obstacles. David O. McKay had the same obstacles, different personalities in the Twelve, but the same obstacles. I think I can make a strong argument that President McKay might have lifted the ban in the 1950s had it not been for some of the hardliners there. What’s different between President McKay and President Kimball, is that Kimball recognize that it was worth fighting for, it was worth going to bat for. I don’t want to say that McKay didn’t think it wasn’t worth it. But Kimball spent a lot of time nurturing relationships with the personalities that he had to work with the most, which is McConkie. I’m not sure about Petersen, how much of the one on one, but I do know with Elder McConkie, he spent extensive time with him working him through these issues. We talked about how McConkie gone to Brazil several times in the weeks and days leading up to the revelation. So when they went to the temple in June of 1978, it wasn’t like the manuals, say, “Oh, I just had a revelation one day.”  No, this is something they knew they we’re going to change when they got there. I’m not trying to take away from their revelatory experience and the inspiration of it all. But there’s no doubt in my mind that President Kimball knew the ban was going to go that day and I’m quite certain that the others knew that it was going to go, too. It was just a matter of being unified and probably feeling that last-minute inspiration that they felt they needed to have.

What are your thoughts on Matt’s research on the ban?

Dr. Matt Harris describes how Pres Kimball got the apostles on board with the 1978 revelation.  This is the group of apostles from 1969 that did not overturn the ban under President McKay when many of the protests took place.

Don’t miss our other conversations with Dr. Harris!

352: BYU Law School Almost Lost Accreditation

351: Civil Rights Investigation at BYU

350: Sports Protests Against BYU

349: Race & Religious Minorities at BYU

348: How Brazil Influenced Official Declaration 2

347: Did Nixon & Carter Pressure BYU Over Race?