But here you have it. Astounding. Thank you.

Let’s not forget that JS WROTE the Book of Mormon and he’s the one that put all that talk of god punishing with skin pigment in there.

Truly awesome the extent we’ll go to maintain our belief that JS was demi-god.

He was just a very gifted man. Based on that, I can forgive him for being such.

In short, I think Elder Stapley, in this letter is, to put it bluntly, full of it with respect to Joseph.

J. Stapley over at By Common Consent did a post on this little episode with his ancestor here:

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/06/conflicted-feelings/

My understanding is that Bruce R. McConkie personally delivered a sermon containing the closest thing to a repudiation that you’re going to get. He basically said, “forget what I, or anyone else has said on this matter. The Lord has spoken” the end. Not exactly the apology some are looking for, but it did seem like a pretty clear repudiation of the “Mark of Cain/Curse of Ham” business.

I for one was born into the church in 1966 and raised though 1978 with the understanding that the church’s position on the races was god’s position. BRM did say what you present, but not to the church as a whole and certainly not to the world … I believe it was before a group of LDS educators — and the church has not repented of this racism before the world where the wrong was done.

And my honest belief is that it never will, ’cause really — this would mean the repudiation of more than a few rogue statements of men, it would mean admitting that parts of the Book of Mormon are doctrinally unsound.

Perhaps they will do it, but that day will be one where the virtue of Mormonism’s claim to divine authorship will be greatly diminished.

View this in light of the Law of Moses’ prohibition on Israelites marrying non-Israelites, and it’s fairly easy to see why Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and others would have viewed the skin color change as a curse. I also wouldn’t put it past God to take advantage of the natural prejudices of the Nephites to encourage them to avoid intermarrying with the Lamanites and adopting idolatrous practices.

Pure speculation, but still fun.

I am sympathetic to the dilemma this puts LDS members in that mel mentioned. If the church repents, it first has to confess that its leadership was wrong on the issue and admit in humility that Wilford Woodruff was erred when he said:

“…the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13 as quoted in Gospel Principles, Chapter 9)

In other words, they would have to admit that an LDS Prophet can indeed lead his people astray. If the LDS church admitted this, it would have gone a long way to divesting itself of pride.

Seth, I would suggest reading the full text of Joseph Smith’s letter to Oliver Cowdery. It seems that Elder Stapley is more familiar with Joseph’s statements on this issue than I am. Having said that, Joseph did change his views later in life, and I don’t know what source Stapley has for Joseph wanting to ship freed slaves back to Africa.

In the BCC post you linked to, I thought the phrase “false beliefs regarding civil rights” was interesting. Actually, Elder Stapley’s views were correct doctrine by all accounts.

And yes, “white ass Americans” most definitely still have some repenting to do.

Besides, if we can’t point out behavior and beliefs that we think hurt our community, then why bother living on the same planet together?

Precisely the point as I see it. How can you repent if you won’t even admit that your past consists entirely of human failing?

And Jonathan makes this point in a much friendlier way but a shorter dpc is “STFU unless you’re perfect”. Sounds like a great approach to progress …

Where do you live exactly? Down here in the South, you still see a lot of racism and segregation, on both sides. And compared to some parts of the world it is very tame. Most people who write about racism haven’t seem it first hand or haven’t experienced it first hand. The African-American population down here has more important things to worry about what some member of a podunk church said forty years ago in a private letter. I’ve been to some other congregations down here and I’ve found that some churches remain quite segregated, whereas the Mormon church was more racially-mixed, especially in the little branch I used to attend.

I think the best solution to problems of race come from ignoring it. It should be made illegal to ask questions regarding race on documents and forms. That is what foments racism and race-identity. It doesn’t make sense to me to classify a person from South Asia (who is from a physical anthropology standpoint, Caucasoid and more closely related to Europeans) in the same category as a person from East Asia or Southeast Asia. Race is arbitrary. It’s not a real category.

The complaint to my ears is that the Mormon church was racist and that they haven’t gone far enough to right that wrong. Maybe an apology doesn’t cut it. Maybe the church should pay money to every person who was denied the priesthood. Maybe Delbert Stapley’s descendants should have to make reparations to those harmed by his insensitive remarks. Apologies are meaningless. Did it make one iota of difference to anyone that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Catholic church’s actions in the Middle Ages? The time and effort is better directed elsewhere. As Thoreau aptly said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

The best way to end racism is to simply stop discriminating based on race. It consists of more than pointing the finger at times past and saying, “I wouldn’t do that if I was there. I’m enlightened.” It comes from deep reflection and introspection on your own attitudes and prejudices. It does not come from words, it comes from actions.

I think we largely agree. If you heard in my words a request for reparations, then I haven’t communicated well enough. I’m not asking anyone to make reparations.

Apologies aren’t meaningless or useless. Not only do they smooth relations between people, they also transform the apologizer. In this context, an official repudiation of and apology for misguided racist doctrines of the past may make a few people of African descent feel better about the LDS church; more importantly, it would grant members of the LDS church full permission to root out racism in themselves.

I don’t think that most LDS are outright bigots. Instead they may say to themselves “I think racism is generally bad, but prophets of God taught racist doctrines. Racism most be OK on some level, otherwise God wouldn’t have prescribed it.” This is something that an apology could heal. Then mainstream LDS could denounce racism unequivocally (at the cost of their belief that all presidents of the church never led anyone astray).

I freely admit that, if I had been born into the same world as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Delbert Stapely, I probably would have been just as racist. There is a precedent. I don’t want to blame early Mormon leaders as much as I hope that current Mormons will repudiate the racist ideas of the past.

I share your hope for a race-less world where race doesn’t exist as a category. I don’t believe we can get there from here by ignoring it completely. We have to address these racist doctrines in order to root them out, to get beyond them. I guess another option is to try to forget it ever happened, but that seems less honest.

Perhaps his views were more likely to lead to evolution rather than revolution?Was this perhaps the point?Really struggling to get my head round this.How did we get from there to the twelve praying on the matter in the temple?I can only assume that the spirit works on our souls over time.
One thing I reflect on-in my 30 years in the church I’ve seen many changes,and they have all been for the better.Funny how you can still know the church is true in the face of such distressing information.

You bring out a good point. Stapley was an apostle at the time of Official Declaration 2. He apparently sustained that action from a hospital bed:

Like those of the LDS Church, Stapley’s views changed with time and, from his hospital bed, Stapley sustained the First Presidency’s action on June 8, 1978 that all worthy men receive the priesthood, regardless of race.

Joseph Smith’s ideas seemed to evolve though I wouldn’t ever call him sympathetic to enslaved Africans.

I think the takeaway message here is that Mormon church leaders are not immune to the prejudices and follies of their time. Their understanding evolves over time just like the understanding of all mankind. They and the doctrines that they teach are not infallible and shouldn’t be treated as the unimpeachable end of all discussion on a topic. We are each still responsible for our own actions because the Mormon prophets aren’t a sure guide. (I wish they were; it would make life so much simpler.)

Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
He knows the way.
(Except when he doesn’t so don’t follow him too closely. Results may vary.)

I think the impression that the Canaanites were descended from Africans (aren’t we all?) comes from Abraham 1:21–22. This seems to confuse who the Canaanites were.

In any case, Simon’s name seems to have almost zero chance of meaning that he was African in descent.