Saturday, June 02, 2012

The Wrong Side of White -- Sightings

I remember when the Mormon Church ended the ban on African-Americans serving in their priesthood.  The ban had gone back more than a century, and it became extremely problematic because many LDS churches used the Boy Scouts as part of their youth program, and the discriminatory practice ran contrary to the Scout's principles.  So, as happened earlier with regard to polygamy, the President/Prophet of the Church made a prophetic declaration, ending the ban, and African Americans and other people of color were fully welcomed into the church.  
The Mormon Church has gotten a lot of publicity of late because of its entrance into politics, especially Republican politics.  The presumptive GOP nominee for President, Mitt Romney is a Mormon (so is the Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid).  In this piece Paul Reeve notes the Mormon attempt to claim whiteness in the 19th century after being accused of being too accommodating to blacks in the early portion of their history.  It's an interesting and intriguing story, which we would be wise to consider.  That is, the way we as faith communities can tie ourselves into knots trying to blend into the culture!    


The Wrong Side of White
-- W. Paul Reeve

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) has consistently found itself on the wrong side of white. In a recent New York Times article, “Black Mormons and the Politics of Identity,” an embedded video begins with a Timesreporter commenting “it may come as a surprise to people that there are black Mormons in America.” It is a telling statement that captures the nexus of the LDS Church’s racial past and its efforts to realize a more diverse racial future. 
Although few in number, blacks have been a part of the LDS movement from its founding to the present. The first documented African American to join the LDS Church was a former slave known only in the historical record as “Black Pete.” He became a member at Kirtland, Ohio, in 1830, the year of the Church’s founding. More significantly, at least two black men, Elijah Abel and Q. Walker Lewis, were ordained to the Mormon priesthood in the Church’s early years. Abel participated in Mormon temple rituals at Kirtland and was baptized as proxy for a deceased friend and two relatives at Nauvoo, Illinois.  
In this regard, it is most accurate to speak of integrated priesthood and temples in Mormonism’s early years, a progressive stance in a charged national racial context. At the same time that the nation moved toward legal segregation in the wake of Reconstruction’s demise, the open space for full black participation in Mormonism gave way in fits and starts. By the first decade of the twentieth century race-based priesthood and temple bans were firmly in place.  
It is impossible to understand that trajectory without first understanding the ways in which white Mormons themselves were racialized. The prevailing American fear of interracial mixing played a significant role in that process, especially as outsiders projected their own alarm over race mixing onto Mormons. At Kirtland, outsiders suggested that Black Pete received revelations to marry white women. In Missouri settlers argued that Mormons were inviting free black converts to that state, not only to incite a slave rebellion but to steal white women. 
After the Mormons openly announced the practice of polygamy in 1852, the charge of interracial mixing took on a life of its own. One Army doctor filed a report with the United States Senate in which he claimed polygamy was giving rise to a degenerate “race.” Political cartoons depicted interracial polygamous families, sometimes with black, Asian, and Native American wives mixed in among the white. In a variety of ways outsiders constructed Mormons as racially suspect, facilitators of interracial mixing and therefore of racial contamination. As one news account put it, “the days of the white race are numbered in this country.” At the crux of this fearful deterioration was the “American of the future,” “a black Mormon.” 
Against such a charged national racial backdrop, Mormons responded with an effort to claim whiteness for themselves. In 1852, Brigham Young drew upon the curses of Cain, Ham, and Canaan, derived from long standing Judeo-Christian Biblical exegeses, to bar black men from the priesthood. Leaders later expanded the policy to include temple worship for black men and women, except for proxy baptisms for their deceased ancestors. In 1908, leaders cemented those policies in place when historical forgetfulness trumped verifiable evidence to misremember that the bans had always been there, divine mandates that only God could rescind. 
With that reconstructed memory as the new guiding principle, it took Spencer W. Kimball, the faith’s mild and unassuming prophet, to overturn the ban. In 1978, Kimball announced a revelation which returned Mormonism to its universalistic roots and reintegrated its priesthood and temples. 
Since that time, Mormon growth in Africa has been rapid, while the pace among blacks at home has been much slower. The bans and the doctrines that supported them sometimes plague missionary efforts among blacks and make it difficult to retain converts once they join. LDS leaders have yet to repudiate past teachings which shored up the bans, a lingering problem that makes it possible for various iterations of those teachings to live on in the hearts and minds of some members. 
In the meantime, black Mormons, like their coreligionists of all stripes, must decide how they will vote in this historic election year. It is a contest that is poised to pit the nation’s first president of African ancestry against the first Mormon of any color to capture a major party nomination. Mitt Romney’s ascendancy to the top of the GOP ticket might signal to some Mormons that their historically pariah faith has finally arrived. In that regard, Romney may very well mark Mormonism’s full racial passage to whiteness. It is an awkwardly-timed if not tepid acceptance that coincides with Mormon attempts to claim a more diverse racial identity for themselves—witness the “I Am a Mormon” national media campaign featuring a heterogeneous group of Latter-day Saints as the faces of modern Mormonism. 
Unlike his Mormon ancestors, no one today questions Mitt Romney’s whiteness. One culture critic went so far as to call him “the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.” It is a designation that Mormons craved a century ago, but one that comes as a liability today. The historical arc of Mormonism’s racial dance is richly ironic. In the nineteenth century they were denigrated as not white enough, by the twenty-first century, as too white. 
Susan Saulny, “Black Mormons and the Politics of Identity,” The New York Times, May 22, 2012.
 Lee Siegel, “What’s Race Got to Do With It?,” The New York Times, January 14, 2012.
 Jason Horowitz, “The Genesis of a Church’s Stand on Race,” The Washington Post, February 28, 2012.
 Official LDS Statement, “Race and the Church: ‘All Are Alike Unto God.
 For the “I Am A Mormon” campaign, see:
 W. Paul Reeve is Associate Professor of History at the University of Utah. He is writing a book, Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness, under contract at Oxford University Press.

 On the occassion of John Paul II's visit to India in 1999, the Advaitin teacher Swami Dayananda Saraswati addressed a public letter to the pope entitled "Conversion is Violence." The letter, as Reid Locklin summarizes, drew an "absolute contrast ... between 'aggressive, converting' religions like Christianity and Islam and 'non-violent, non-converting' religions like Hinduism." But is it true that Hinduism does not convert?  In this month's Religion & Culture Web Forum, Locklin, a Martin Marty Center Senior Fellow in 2010-11, explores "whether and in what respect modern Advaita movements may be said to advocate religious conversion"; and he identifies "a key methodological defect in the controversy: namely, a univocal concept of conversion." Locklin also suggests ways that "an Advaita theology of conversion might ... offer resources for reconsidering, reimagining and redescribing conversion to Christ, on the model of that most famous of converts, the Apostle Paul." Read Up, Over, Through: Rethinking "Conversion" as a Category of Hindu-Christian Studies.
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School.


Jeff said...

I would leave aside the whys and wherefores of the Mormon churches leadership and simply accept positive change -to do otherwise strikes me as uncharitable inasmuch as I would prefer my own changes to be viewed as having had some measure of authenticity.

With regard to the Hindu-Christian paper, it suffers from a very '80s style academic Marxist structuring, along with a rather zero sum view in light of increasing secularization. One could easily frame the issue in a structural functionalist form and reach rather different conclusions -let alone descriptions of the 'problems'. The critique is really one of power and not the religions in question. Where is the duty/dharma of the adherent towards his or her faith and responsibilities towards others? The contrast within the Christian tradition might better be phrased how is conversion different now as opposed to when Christianity was itself a marginalized sect. Furthermore, what violence is done towards the 2000 year old apostolic Indian Church's members -are they not 'real' Indians? The situation of course, is quite different when Christians come from a place of power; we should therefore divest ourselves of it in as much as Jesus did to walk among us.

Robert Cornwall said...

Jeff, I agree that we should accept positive change for what it is, but I think we can learn a broader lesson from this experience -- that is, as we seek to reflect the society we live in, we can find ourselves ultimately out of step with it. Where whiteness was once something to be prized, now and in the future it will be less so.

I think some of the culture wars conflicts today are expressive of that fear that European-Americans are nearing the end of their unchallenged hegemony in culture.

One of the reasons why, I believe, that the birther movement has made so much headway is that it helps undergird the idea that he's different (non-white) and thus not like us. A generation ago, Roman Catholics such as John Kennedy faced a similar challenge.