Comments on: Review: For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013

By: Chester Lee Hawkins

Chester Lee Hawkins — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 03:06:22 +0000

I had recently completed reading Stevenson’s book, and found it to be a challenge to an African-American in the Church. My eyes kept me on the new stuff that I didn’t know about, especially that of Africa per se. The church’s missionnary efforts were interesting, as well as informative. It took me two months to read the book thoroughly, and especially the documentation portion. I have learned a great deal by studying the end notes, because I am presently compiling a massive comprehensive bibliography on “Latter-day Saints and Black Americans, 1830-2015.” Have been working on this project since having retired fromm the United States Senate Library in 2009. Enjoying it very much, learning more each day while compiling this bibliography. Again, let me say that I enjoyed reading Stevenson’s book immencely (sp). Now, I am reading Reeve’s, and I am on Chapter. Thanks for the review, and have a great evening.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:01:33 +0000

Another review was just posted at JI, covering many of the same points discussed above. I was pleased that the reviewer shares the the evaluation I made in the last paragraph: “For the Cause of Righteousness is the best one-volume history of blacks and Mormonism available anywhere.”

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/book-review-for-the-cause-of-righteousness-a-global-history-of-blacks-and-mormonism/

By: Russell

Russell — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:41:49 +0000

Raymond:

Those are interesting questions, and I know more than a few scholars (e.g. Ignacio Garcia) who have legitimate criticisms that Mormonism’s racial history has focused disproportionately on its relationship with peoples of African descent.

I would advise against conflating active proselytizing efforts with a theology of racial equality. The Saints deployed “cursed” language in regards to Mexicans and Native Americans, seeing themselves as a kind of benevolent patriarch meant to “lift up” the native peoples of the Americas. Giving them priesthood office and administering saving ordinances does not mean, in these cases, that the Saints saw indigenous peoples as being like unto themselves.

By: Amy T

Amy T — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:20:34 +0000

RTS, the book is focused, as its title says, on the history of blacks and Mormonism. With that comprehensive a topic the author already had to skim over great amounts of history, just touching lightly on fascinating topics like the Church in South Africa, so your point, interesting as it would be to read a book on the topic, is outside the scope of Stevenson’s book.

By: Raymond Takashi Swenson

Raymond Takashi Swenson — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:30:34 +0000

Does the book look at the relationship between the Church and its doctrine to other racial minorities? In contrast to the limitations on full participation in priesthood and temple ordinances for people of African descent, the Church from its beginning sought to recruit, baptize, ordain and endow members of other minority “races” who tended to be lumped with blacks by the kind of classic Southern racist, as well as by more enlightened Northerners. Being American Indian, Hispanic, Polynesian or Asian meant second class citizenship in America through the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th, but the Mormons were actively recruiting from those populations during that entire period.

By: Travis

Travis — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:17:26 +0000

I think part of the reason why it’s often referred to as “the priesthood ban” is that temple worship is understood to be a priesthood function for all involved. This could be seen as dignifying and empowering of women rather than ignoring or dismissing them.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:57:13 +0000

Farside, I was referring to the statement disavowing prior theories about the priesthood ban as definitive, not to the essay as a whole in relation to the topic as a whole. Plainly, both Russell’s book and the recent book by W. Paul Reeve show we still have a lot to learn.

By: FarSide

FarSide — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:59:52 +0000

Thanks for the review, Dave. I will order my copy today. I do, however, have one quibble and one request.

My quibble: I would not characterize the church’s essay on Race and the Priesthood as “definitive.” There is nothing “definitive” about any of the essays that appear at LDS.org; rather, they are simply the church’s views on certain topics—views that are not shared, in their entirety, by scholars and others who have examined the same issues. Don’t get me wrong. I heartily welcome the church’s disavowal of the racist rationales previously proffered in support of the priesthood ban. But to characterize the essay as “definitive” suggests that there is nothing more to discuss or debate. (Perhaps you didn’t intend that meaning, but if I can’t quibble about something in your posts, what’s the point of getting out of bed in the morning?)

My request: I share your view that we living through LDS Retrenchment 2.0, and I’d love to see you expound on this subject in a separate post.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:30:02 +0000

JMS: Yes. This book is not nearly as good as Reeve’s.

By: JMS

JMS — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:22:56 +0000

Can anyone comment on how this book covers territory similar to or different from Paul Reeve’s recent book, “Religion of a Different Color”?

By: Russell

Russell — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:08:51 +0000

Jack:

For my part, it’s more representative of my personal writing DNA. I deploy the kind of approach that I do in the spirit of one who is seeking to understand causation, the changing relationship of peoples of African-descent and Mormons over the time, the forces that made the global black Mormon experience.
My work should provide the foundation for those seeking to have a well-rounded and thoughtful conversation about the origins, course, and outcomes of the restriction.

Moreover, my introduction does speak to my views on how the relationship came into being, that it was a product of a peculiar kind of power relationship that has not been entirely explored in the Mormon historiography.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:27:40 +0000

Jack P — there was commentary/criticism in the narrower sense introducing and evaluating documents (in the second section). But in the broader sense, I would say the book *reports* the history of the doctrine and practice rather than *critiquing* that history. Certainly a different author could take some of the material in the book to construct a critique. But the stronger the position one takes vis-a-vis the material, the greater the chance that agenda biases the author. So it’s the author’s choice how to approach the material. I suppose each reader gets to make their own determination whether the strictly neutral approach works in this particular case.

By: Jack P

Jack P — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:26:15 +0000

Dave: can a book that has “almost no commentary or criticism from the author” really be “the primary scholarly treatment of the LDS race and priesthood history”? Isn’t scholarship making commentary and an argument?

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:27:17 +0000

PW, you are right that the temple exclusion part of the policy is often glossed over, but I think Russell was quite cognizant of this in the book. In particular, there is a detailed discussion, supported by several letters, of Jane Manning James’s persistent attempts to be admitted to an LDS temple to receive her endowment in the last part of the 19th century (p. 283-86).

By: The PangWitch

The PangWitch — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:18:58 +0000

why do we insist on talking about “blacks and the priesthood?” it wasnt just black men that were banned from ordinances. it’s not like black women were allowed to get married in the temple.