The race-based priesthood and temple ban that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had in place from the 1850s until 1978 is a heavy, but important subject to study. I’ve shared a review about W. Paul Reeve’s recently-released Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood where I stated that it was one of “the best and most important entries in a fantastic series”, and I stand by that statement. Recently, W. Paul Reeve shared some of the insights he has gained from his research on the topic of race and the priesthood in an interview at the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk. What follows here is a co-post to that interview (a shorter post with excerpts and some discussion). W. Paul Reeve describes the history of the race-based priesthood and temple ban as a three-stage arc. In the interview he stated that: The book is divided into three phases which lay out the chronological history of the racial priesthood and temple restrictions as I have come to understand them: Phase 1. In phase one there were no restrictions. Priesthood and temples were open to people of all races and ethnicities. In fact the First Presidency published an article in the Nauvoo newspaper in 1840 announcing their intent to welcome “persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color” into the temple that they would start to build the following spring. Phase 2. Sadly, that open…
Category: Race and the Priesthood
Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood
Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood by W. Paul Reeve is a thought-provoking and insightful book that explores some key aspects of the intersection of race and religion in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To me, this volume is up there with Brittany Chapman Nash’s Let’s Talk About Polygamy as both the best and most important entries in a fantastic series. Reeve, a professor of history at the University of Utah, draws on his extensive research to provide a nuanced and detailed account of the Church’s racial policies and practices from its founding in the early 19th century to the present day.
Juneteenth and Utah Territory
Tomorrow is Sunday, June 19, which is celebrated as Juneteenth National Independence Day in memory of the day that the Emancipation Proclamation began to be enforced in Galveston, Texas by the Union Army (19 June 1865). In Utah, this also doubles as the anniversary of the day that Abraham Lincoln signed a bill into law that banned slavery in United States territories (19 June 1862), ending slavery in Utah Territory: CHAP. CXI.–An Act to secure Freedom to all Persons within the Territories of the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. APPROVED, June 19, 1862. Prior to this bill passing, Utah Territory was a slave territory. While the practice of slavery was relatively small in Utah (from what Sally Gordon was saying at the Mormon History Association Conference, most Latter-day Saint enslavers moved to the California colony of San Bernardino), it was present in Utah and had been made legal by the territory legislature in 1852, with Brigham Young’s encouragement. In fact, three slaves, named Green Flake, Hark Lay, and…
On the Priesthood and Temple Ban
With the recent hullabaloo about Brad Wilcox’s firesides, I have had a few things on my mind, perhaps most intensely around the priesthood and temple ban against individuals of black African ancestry. The short version is this: After studying the evidence, I believe that the ban was not instituted and sustained by God’s will. Now, I’m not trying to pick on Brother Wilcox by bringing this up (he did apologize, etc.), but because of the discussion about his fireside, the topic has been on my mind, and I feel like I need to share my perspective. It should be noted up-front that current Church statements leave the issue of whether the ban was of God or human-made open to interpretation. For example, the heading to Official Declaration 2 acknowledges that “Church records offer no clear insights in the origin of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice.” The Gospel Topics Essay on the subject acknowledges that American racial culture of the mid-19th century may have influenced Brigham Young in establishing the ban. It also echoes the language of the section header for Official Declaration 2, leaving it open to interpretation whether the ban was inspired and held in place by God’s will or simply held in place by the personal beliefs of Church leaders in the words and actions of their predecessors. Thus, there is room in the Church for accepting…