Today’s inspirational reading for youth is from the 1956 classic, “Choose Ye This Day” by Emma Marr Petersen. Yes, that’s the wife of Mark E. Peterson, an apostle during the swinging 70s. While it’s not quite as authoritative as if Elder Petersen had written it himself — although he might have, who knows, plausible deniability being what it is — I doubt Sister Petersen would have strayed too far from his ideas. (She was known to share the stage with Elder Petersen on one occasion.) At the very least, the book is an interesting indicator as to the kinds of thoughts that were welcome in the Petersen household.
In this chapter, trouble is brewing at a small college when Milo Patterson, a black student, takes a spot on the football team over the protests of students. Some students decide to ask Hank, an older, respected member of their community and a Latter-day Saint, what position he takes on the matter. Hank, who serves as the voice of the author, launches into a frighteningly candid defense of institutionalised racism in the LDS Church and society in general, using the tried-and-true ‘blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal life’ argument that I heard many times during my Mormon days. At least Hank/Emma doesn’t advocate total banishment of the seed of Cain. He/she only asks that blacks endure partial social acceptance throughout their lives, and then eternal servitude in the highest Mormon heaven — but only if they’re righteous.
This extract serves as evidence that, yes, the idea that Africans were less valiant in the pre-mortal life was well-known and taught at one point in LDS history (note that Hank has been taught these things ‘all [his] life’). But it also shows that Mormon doctrine can change when members draw upon their capacity for fairness and justice, and ignore dogma coming from the many apologists in their midst.
Might a knowledge of evolution have helped Emma Petersen? When you understand that some people have dark skin because of evolutionary adaptation (instead of picking some self-serving supernatural reason, like “they’re evil”), it reduces your need to take scraps of mythology and weave them into a complicated justification of whatever social prejudices are prevalent in the religious community. But then, neither of the Petersens went in much for evolution. Sister Petersen’s book shows a creationist professor giving an evolutionist professor a good thrashing in a debate, while Elder Petersen once opined that evolution was Satan’s way of destroying America via atheism.
Happy reading! Scans at the bottom.
CHAPTER EIGHT
HANK’S POINT OF VIEWTHAT night when they went to Hank’s for a snack, a large group of students were watching TV. Hank himself waited on the two boys.
When he brought the order, Kent said in a voice loud enough to be heard by the other students, “Hank, what do you think about this Patterson rebellion over at school?”
Many wished to know what Hank thought about it.
“My attitude on this subject is pretty well guided by my religious views,” he said, “so I hope you won’t mind if I mix a little religion with what I say.”
The other students held Hank in such high regard that they listened respectfully.
“My religion teaches that our existence did not begin when we were born into mortality. We lived before we came to this earth. We were persons then as we are now.”
“Are you talking about reincarnation?” one student asked.
“No, not at all,” said Hank. “I certainly do not believe in reincarnation. We have one existence in mortality, and that is all. I mean that before this earth was made, we lived and worked and played together in another estate.
“We could do as we pleased there, too, just as we can here. Some were not as obedient as others, and naturally they didn’t get along as well.
“We are the children of God, as you know. We were with him. We were his family.
“It is my understanding that at one time our Heavenly Father called us all together and announced that he was planning to send us to this earth where we could be tested and tried under mortal conditions, to see if we would be worthy of further advancement in his kingdom.
“The Lord explained his plan to us at that time, but some of his children did not accept it, and rebelled. This rebellion was led by one of the brightest, but also the most ambitious and selfish of all God’s children. His name was Lucifer. About a third of all the spirits in heaven joined him in this rebellion. They were all driven out, and they became Satan and his followers.
“This fight up in heaven was very much like wars in this life. Some of God’s defenders were more valiant than others. Some were disloyal, but not so bad that they had to be driven out with Lucifer.
“When the time arrived for us to come to this earth, it appears to have been the plan of the Lord to reward us according to our loyalty.
“How could he do that? It seems quite easy, as I look at it, for he permitted those who were most obedient to be born into this life with white skins, and to have opportunities such as are to be had in our country.
“Others were born with dark skins in the jungles of Africa or in the valleys of the Amazon. Still others were born in China or Korea, or India, where opportunities are not as great as here.
“It was a case of reaping what we sowed. I have this same understanding regarding rewards in the life after this where we will be placed in a degree of glory or in other circumstances according to what we earn in this life.”
“Do you mean, Hank,” broke in one of the girls, “that a white person is born white because he was more valiant than others in the life before we came here, and that a colored person was born colored because he was not so valiant?”
“That is exactly what I mean,” said Hank. “How else could all this apparent inequality be explained?”
“Can other races get all the blessings of the Church?” asked another.
“All except the Negro,” said Hank. “He is under a greater handicap than all the others. Japanese, Chinese, Hawaiians, Indians, Koreans, and people of all other races may have all the blessings of the Church, including temple marriage, but not the Negro.
“Evidently because of what he did in that other life, he is placed under a ban and cannot have the priesthood, he cannot advance as far as other people.
“But I would like to say this, though. I have heard some of our leaders teach that even the Negro can go to the celestial kingdom if he is faithful. However, he can be only a servant there. But that is more than many white people will receive, for many of them will be placed in the lower degrees of glory in the next world, because they did not live righteously. So in some respects, Negroes, if they are faithful, may receive a higher glory in the world to come than those of other races who defile their birthright.”
“But what about this football argument? How does all this fit in there?” asked one of the students.
“It fits in like this,” went on Hank. “Each race may develop within itself. So far as the Negroes are concerned, we will give them every right and privilege within their race that we claim for ourselves within our own race, but we will not become intimate with them in any way, and we will not intermarry with them. That is my own personal feeling on this question, and it is what I have been taught all my life. I believe that is a fair position to take, and I believe it squares with the word of God.
“Too close association with them might lead to intermarriage and that would bring the curse of Cain upon children born to such a marriage.
“I must admit that one great danger in being as tolerant as we would wish to be is that some of our people lose their balance and forget that there is after all a barrier between white people and Negroes which should never be crossed. It was the Lord and not man who established that barrier. When man tries to break down a wall set up by the Lord himself, he is asking for trouble, and only trouble can come from intermarriage between white people and Negroes.
“You may not know it, but the Lord anciently commanded that His people should not marry the descendants of Cain, just as he commanded that His people should not marry unbelievers and idolators. If we were not faced with the danger of intermarriage with the Negro, we could be much more tolerant than we are. But there are some leading Negroes who advocate complete absorption of their race with the white race by intermarriage and that is something which I for one can never accept.
“Marriage between white and black people, as I see it, is a violation of God’s commands. So we must avoid steps which would lead to such a thing.”
“I take it, then,” said one of the students, “that you would be in favor of allowing a Negro to play on our football team, as long as we did not take him so far into our social life that some white girl might become infatuated with him.”
“That is just what I believe. I support the school president and the governor in what they have done, and I think you students should do the same.”
“Well, if that’s what you believe, I guess we’ll give the idea another whirl,” Steve said. “Pat’s a good fellow and a swell football player. How about it?”
“Whew, quite a speech,” said Kent, “but I’m game.”
22 January 2011 at 2:06 pm
I would love to hear a present day Mormon comment on this. Would they try to explain it away? would they be ashamed of it and apologise for it? would they be downright disgusted by it and take it to their leaders, demanding answers? would it be the penny that dropped?
aaaargh, and this rhetorical question posed by Hank-
"How else could all this apparent inequality be explained?"
Um, how about because greedy people (nations i.e. those 'pure' white people) stole their resources and then enslaved them!
Just mind boggling! and all of this gets swept under the rug. Mormonism makes me sick.
22 January 2011 at 9:16 pm
I agree with the previous poster. How is this viewed in current LDS doctrine?
/Martin W
22 January 2011 at 9:41 pm
I…wow.
I was going to try to make a joke off of it, but…no…wow.
Hank's rhetorical question also got me.
"How else could all this apparent inequality be explained?"
how about we rephrase that for the modern church
"Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"
22 January 2011 at 11:00 pm
Maureen – Here's a present day Mormon for you… not that one person represents anything…
There is no explaining anything "away." Racism was a huge problem then, and still is now. Only then it was a bit more overt. The church was obviously influenced by this. It was disgusting then, and it is now.
How's that? 😉
23 January 2011 at 12:31 am
The standard response from the apologetic sector usually runs something like this:
"We screwed up, and incorporated our own racism into our metaphysics. This was wrong, there's no real excuse for it. When our leaders said this, and we followed, we were being ordinary fallible human beings.
We weren't the only ones though, and we did inherit a lot of these ideas from our protestant forbears. That doesn't make it any less wrong, but we'd prefer it if you didn't make us sound uniquely villainous."
That approach raises certain theological problems though. Specifically, why didn't God intervene to stop the Church from doing this? But if you're tackling the subject of seeming 'Divine Indifference', then you've got a lot more on your plate than just LDS racism.
Outside of the apologetic community, most people are either ignorant of the racist teachings, or still believe them.
23 January 2011 at 12:32 am
Well, not a bad start, adamf, but it does raise some questions.
1. How is it that an organisation led by the creator of the universe manages to reflect in precise detail exactly the kinds of prejudices we see in the human population at the time? Having a god at your helm should be a really big deal, but for the Mormons it seems to have no consequences whatever for the way the organisation operates. Isn't that a bit of a giveaway? When they claim to have a direct line to god, Mormons can't just say, "Well, how were we supposed to know racism was wrong?"
2. What are Mormons doing now, that in 50 years' time will be 'de-emphasised' (aka 'swept under the carpet')? (Hint: H8.) What else? If things can change like this over time, what basis do you have for saying that your doctrine and your morality gives you a solid basis for belief?
23 January 2011 at 2:07 am
Can we please have a "*facepalm" button in the responses?
Until then, *facepalm
23 January 2011 at 2:48 am
"How is it that an organisation led by the creator of the universe manages to reflect in precise detail exactly the kinds of prejudices we see in the human population at the time?"
I don't know. We'd probably first have to establish what "led" entails though. If we went with the stereotypical Mormon view, maybe "led" would mean "the church is perfect but the people aren't" or some saying like that… I suppose the question for members who believe that the church is perfect, or nearly so, must come to grips with this conundrum of the church reflecting the times.
"What are Mormons doing now, that in 50 years' time will be 'de-emphasised'"
I certainly HOPE the gay marriage issue is 'de-emphasized.' However, I also imagine there are many other things we probably cannot yet conceive in the present that we will look back on (or those in the future will look back on) and think, "wow, that was awful. *facepalm* – not unlike your post here (which I loved).
"If things can change like this over time, what basis do you have for saying that your doctrine and your morality gives you a solid basis for belief?"
Interesting – So, if things can change or evolve, then they're not solid bases for belief, is that what you mean? I'm not sure if I agree with that, but maybe I don't understand the question. The latter is more likely.
My "doctrine" and "beliefs" are rather personal though. Some of which probably go along with the church, some not, some just different. I certainly try not to base my core values or beliefs based solely on what someone older than me said, just like I don't base my opinions or beliefs on argumentation – as I routinely lose arguments to atheists, fundamentalists, conservative Mormons, Christians, etc. 😀
Anyway, I don't know if I addressed your questions very well or not there… thanks though.
23 January 2011 at 2:57 am
Very briefly. The blacks were shunned by the world at large and were not ready to receive what the Lord intended for them to have. Look at other peoples on this earth who were also not favored with the Lord's gospel but are now. The Jews, and we love them dearly, are not actively being taught by the missionaries, but their time will come. Right now, there are thousands of blacks who not only possess the priesthood of God, but they also are endowed from on high.
A 12-yr old little black boy who is a deacon in the LDS church, has more power and authority of God in his little finger than the Pope in Rome and any other high religious figure you may want to name.
The endowed and righteous of this wonderful people will inherit the highest kingdom, not as servants, but as Kings and Queens forever.
23 January 2011 at 3:46 am
Dang, that's a book I hadn't known about growing up. What a doozy!
All we had in the late '60's was "Mormonism and the Negro." It would have been so much cooler to flaunt our racism in novelized form.
Rock Waterman
http://PureMormonism.blogspot.com
23 January 2011 at 4:01 am
…some people have dark skin because of evolutionary adaptation…
I don't have expert knowledge, but wouldn't it be more precise to say that "some people have light skin because of evolutionary adaptation"? In view of our species' African origin, it seems that the "original" human skin color must have been dark rather than light.
Thank you for making these scans.
23 January 2011 at 4:17 am
Good catch, anon. I should have said "people have the skin colour they do because…"
23 January 2011 at 4:53 am
Rock! What a coincidence! I was just listening to you on the Mormon Expressions podcast.
23 January 2011 at 5:49 pm
Look out, Alarik! I'm everywhere! Bu-wa ha ha ha ha!
Hope you liked the podcast!
24 January 2011 at 2:59 pm
I know I'm late to this party but… that shit is messed up!
25 January 2011 at 4:33 pm
1956????
During the 70's and 80's we were schooled against this racist nonsense.
We grew up in a world that preached racial tolerance, to its great credit…..
….and last I saw there was an African
American guy in the Whitehouse. Still the most powerful political position in the world.
Turns out our hearts are right when we correct stupid old views. You can't level blame at any religion, specifically.
27 January 2011 at 1:58 am
Isn't the first rule of an organization to protect the organization? Doctrine is always secondary, regardless of how divine it's origin supposedly claims to be. Therefore, no doctrinal point is so cemented that, if it threatened to destroy the organization, it can't be dispatched with completely. So, religions end up changing so much that earlier adherents would not recognize it or they might even see it as blasphemous. But the modern adherents can point to the changes to illustrate how glorious God is that he leads to ever more wonderful revelations, at a pace that imperfect humans can manage.
The protection the organization offers is always more important than the veracity of the principles it was founded on.
If the adherent(s) (or the power structure) feel protected than the principles don't require any tweaking. Which explains why religions almost always lag behind secular society in terms of social justice.
27 January 2011 at 12:23 pm
Quite so, most recent Anon.
There was a recent discussion on Reddit about this. Someone asked, "Is there any Mormon doctrine so essential that it could never be thrown under the bus?"
And someone responded that really there's only one truly core Mormon doctrine: "The church is true". Outside of that, anything is negotiable.
31 January 2011 at 11:31 pm
Sounds pretty much what the church is saying about gay people nowadays…maybe there's hope for us too!
10 June 2012 at 7:28 am
The fact that the Mormon leadership had to get a special revelation in 1978 to allow the blacks to have the Priesthood, strongly implies that they felt that it was God who had made a law that forbid them from giving it to blacks. If it were a mere social prejudice of the day, they could have easily dispensed with it without any need for a revelation. So obviously the leadership then gave it much more credence than the lay membership are willing to give it today.