Most people who are familiar with race issues in the LDS church would concede that many of the early church member’s personal attitudes towards race reflect the prevailing sentiments of their time. “He was just speaking as a man” is the response frequently offered to those who bring up controversial statements about race made by early church leaders. This excuses these early people from holding views that are odious to our modern enlightened minds.

Many people would concede that in the case of Brigham Young and some other early prophets, statements were made that could be construed in retrospect as racist – but the caveat is always offered that Joseph Smith, the first and great prophet of this final dispensation, was remarkably enlightened and progressive in his attitudes towards race. The prophet’s presidential platform is often cited:

“The Declaration of Independence ‘holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin.” (“Joseph Smith Campaign for President of the United States”, Ensign, Feb 2009, lds.org)

In his platform, Joseph Smith proposed that slavery be ended and that slave owners be paid a “reasonable price” for their slaves. This was a proposal distinctly different from that of the abolitionists, but had the merit of potentially achieving the end of slavery with the willing participation of slave-owners. This proposal is seen as further evidence of Joseph Smith’s divine perspective on issues of race and government.

Other than the publication of this platform, very little is typically taught by the church about Joseph Smith’s position on issues of race and slavery.

Joseph Smith’s Views on Abolition

There is one important document found in the early publications of the church and reproduced in the History of the Church which includes a remarkable amount of detail concerning Joseph Smith’s opinions on race and slavery.

In April of 1836 Joseph Smith composed a letter to Oliver Cowdery, then editor of the church periodical, the Messenger and Advocate. Joseph wanted to make known his views on the issue of slavery and the abolitionist movement. In the letter, he makes several statements that are revealing about his views on race and slavery.

The letter can be viewed in its original published form at the LDS Sponsored Archive.org or on official LDS web servers where it is included in the History of the Church or on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Effect of Emancipation

First, he describes what he believes the result of freeing the entire community of black people would be on the communities of the nation:

“This must be a tender print, and one which should call forth the candid reflections of all men, and more especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair states of the South, and let loose upon the world a community of people, who might, peradventure, overrun our country, and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity and virtue.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2, p436 byu.edu)

Here Joseph articulates the “rape myth” about race/slavery – the idea that the black men are innately barbaric and libidinous and unable to control their animalistic passions. The allusion to violation of “chastity and virtue” is an appeal to the fear that freed black men would rape white women. It was this same fear and the resulting aberration of justice which pervaded the reconstruction era south and was depicted in the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird.” In truth, a black slave woman was in far greater danger of being raped by her owner than white women were at risk for rape by freed black men.

Abolitionists vs Slaveowners

Next, the prophet goes on to point out that it is the owners of the slaves in the south who are most familiar with the practice of slavery and, being persons of ability and discernment, they would be the best judges as to whether or not the practice is evil and what remedy to prescribe if so:

“No one will pretend to say that the people of the free states are as capable of knowing the evils of slavery, as those who hold slaves. If slavery be an evil, who could we expect would first learn it: Would the people of the free states, or the people of the slave states? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact. If the fact were learned first by those immediately concerned, who would be more capable than they of prescribing a remedy? And besides, are not those who hold slaves, persons of ability, discernment and candor? Do they not expect to give an account at the bar of God for their conduct in this life? It may no doubt with propriety be said that many who hold slaves live without the fear of God before their eyes; but the same may be said of many in the free states. Then who is to be the judge in this matter?” (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p437, byu.edu)

The sensibility of this argument is highly questionable. By this same logic, the atrocities of any dictator may be simply ignored with the idea that if their crimes were legitimate, the perpetrators themselves would be the best judges of the matter. His ridiculous argument that slave owners are persons of ability, discernment and candor and hold slaves without fear of God makes the case that if the perpetrator of an evil feels no guilt – then there is nothing amiss.

He goes on to state that since the abolitionists are not directly involved in slavery, they should not agitate for emancipation or make any other statements regarding the right of the slaveowners of the South to continue in the practice:

“So long, then, as the people of the free states, are not interested in the freedom of the slaves, in any other way than upon the mere abstract principles of equal rights, and of the Gospel; and are ready to admit that there are men of piety who reside in the South, who are immediately concerned, and until they complain and call for assistance, why not cease this clamor, and no further urge the slave to acts of murder, and the master to vigorous discipline, rendering both miserable, and unprepared to pursue that course which might otherwise lead them both to better their conditions? I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p437, byu.edu)

Joseph appears to dismiss the concerns of the abolitionists as a mere abstract philosophical hobby. His advice to the men and women who see injustice and call for remedy is to have them shut up and stop rocking the boat. Far from standing up for the ideals of justice and liberty, the prophet here is making the case for slavery to continue until the slave owners themselves see fit to stop it. This same logic would justify allowing physical abuse of an innocent to proceed until the violator himself decides that it’s time to stop.

He next states that since the northern abolitionists have rarely traveled south, seen a “negro” or directly seen their circumstances, their efforts to promote freedom of the slaves could hardly benefit those in captivity:

“And further, what benefit will it ever be to the slaves for persons to run over the free states, and excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands, who understand nothing relative to their circumstances, or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never traveled in the South, and who in all their lives have scarcely ever seen a negro.” (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p438, byu.edu)

By the Prophet’s logic here, even the vilest violation of human rights should be tolerated by onlookers, simply because they haven’t walked a mile in the shoes of the perpetrator or victim. The fact that Joseph is making excuses to perpetuate the institution of slavery and quell its critics speaks volumes about his attitude towards the men and women in captivity and his own ideas of justice.

Scriptural Defense of Slavery

After making these statements against the intentions of the abolitionists, Joseph Smith goes on to provide a biblical and religious justification for the practice of slavery.

Noah and Descendants of Ham

First, Joseph points out that the first declaration of slavery comes from the Bible. He indicates that Noah was a just man before God and Genesis records that he declared Canaan, the descendants of Ham, to be cursed as a “servant of servants”:

“I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant” (Gen. 9:25, 26). (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p438, byu.edu)

The spectacle of the “Prophet of the restoration” using old testament scripture to rebut Christian critics is made all the more ludicrous by the brazen tone that Joseph takes in putting up the defense of human captivity. It is as though he takes pride in attributing a justification of slavery to “Jehovah” which is the Mormon figure of Christ as the main deity of the Old Testament.

This notion of the curse of Ham justifying a lesser position of black men would survive slavery and be used to justify the prohibition of priesthood ordination of Black men.

Further citing scripture, Joseph declares that those who fight against slavery risk the consequences of God’s judgment:

“What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p438, byu.edu)

This is a theme that we see repeated throughout Mormon church history. First, criticisms of certain doctrines arise from among those who are either outside the church or among its lay membership. In response, the leaders reinforce their doctrinal positions and impugn the critics as being too bold or prideful for speaking out against the Prophets without authority. Then, later, the position of the critics is adopted by the leadership who attribute it to a revelation from God which they are uniquely authorized to receive. It happened with slavery, racism, adam-god, blood atonement and we are seeing such a shift in attitude towards homosexuals.

Abraham

Joseph finds additional scriptural support for slavery in the account of Abraham. He points out that Abraham conversed with God who gave him direction and instruction. He points out that scriptures record that Abraham held men-servants and maid-servants. Joseph argues that if it was evil to do so, God would have instructed Abraham to cease owning slaves. He concludes that since Abraham kept his blessing and did not cease owning slaves, that God did not consider it an evil principle:

“I must not pass over a notice of the history of Abraham, of whom so much is spoken in the Scripture. If we can credit the account, God conversed with him from time to time, and directed him in the way he should walk, saying, “I am the Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Paul says the Gospel was preached to this man. And it is further said, that he had sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants, etc. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to this holy man, he would have been instructed to that effect, and if he was instructed against holding men servants and maid-servants, he never ceased to do it; consequently must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord, and thereby lost His blessings; which was not the fact.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p439, byu.edu)

The logic employed by Joseph here becomes problematic as soon as the change in attitude towards slavery comes, as it eventually does.

Since modern thinking is that there could never be a divinely ordained justification for slavery, then this logic would either demonstrate that Abraham lost his blessings or that his servants were something other than slaves, an admission that impeaches Joseph’s authoritative claim to provide accurate scriptural interpretation.

Furthermore, Joseph’s own logic here could be used against the church on the matter of the modern LDS Prophets and their statements about race justifying the priesthood ban. You could frame the argument using the same words Joseph does:

God conversed with Joseph, Brigham and all the modern Mormon Prophets from time to time and directed them in the ways they should walk. They believed and taught of the inferior position of the black race by nature of the curse. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to these holy men, they would have been instructed to that effect, and if they were instructed against holding these beliefs, they never ceased to hold them or teach them; consequently they must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord, and thereby lost their blessings and priesthood authority; which was not the fact. Parallel argument to Joseph’s which could be applied to Mormon Prophets

In fact, it is this very sort of argument that impeaches the claimed divine authority of Mormon prophets which leads many people to examine the history of the church on racism and conclude that there is no divine hand in it.

Mosaic Law

Joseph then argued that since there were provisions for slavery under the Mosaic Law, it must be a practice allowed by God:

“…And if after a man had served six years, he did not wish to be free, then the master was to bring him unto the judges—bore his ear with an awl, and that man was “to serve him forever.”The conclusion I draw from this, is, that his people were led and governed by revelation, and if such a law was wrong, God only is to be blamed, and abolitionists are not responsible.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p439, byu.edu)

This scriptural apologetic is an appeal to divine authority which would have far-reaching implications if it were to be universally applied.

The Bible includes stories of Prophet’s commanding murder, genocide and rape. . Joseph’s rationale would justify those atrocities as well as slavery.

Joseph would later articulate a very similar theological principle. See the “Happiness Letter” given to Nancy Rigdon containing the idea that “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” lds.org

Christ’s Apostles

Joseph bolsters his argument by commenting that the Apostles were men of God who knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote in their epistles. He quotes a passage from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and explains that since we are instructed to be obedient to God as our Master, there is a model for slaves to be obedient to their slave-owner masters, who are required to treat their slaves kindly:

“…the matter can be put to rest without much argument, if we look at a few items in the New Testament. Paul says: “Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eyeservice as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall be received of the Lord, whether he be bound or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven: neither is there respect of persons with him” (Eph. 6:5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Here is a lesson which might be profitable for all to learn; … Here certainly, are represented the master, and servant; and so far from instructions to the servant to leave his master, he is commanded to be in obedience, as unto the Lord; the master in turn, is required to treat him with kindness before God; understanding, at the same time, that he is to give an account. The hand of fellowship is not withdrawn from him in consequence of his having servants.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p439, byu.edu)

Joseph reinforces this point by quoting further from Paul’s first epistle to Timothy which describes the relationship between servants and masters. Joseph does not comment on the quote, but includes the section which condemns those who “teach otherwise” and states that it “stands for itself” – an implication that the abolitionists fall into this category:

“The same writer, in his first epistle to Timothy, the sixth chapter, and the first five verses, says,—”Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” This is so perfectly plain, that I see no need of comment. The Scripture stands for itself; and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the abolitionists in the world.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p440, byu.edu)

Joseph is using these scriptures to cast aspersions on the very men and women who are standing up for the rights and dignity of the slaves. The abolitionists chose not to use scripture to justify slavery, they argued vigorously against it. Here a supposed Prophet of God is condemning them and calling their minds “corrupt” and destitute of truth. Over time it must be acknowledged that it was the very rationalizations that Joseph is putting forth in this letter which were corrupt and destitute of the truth. This should impeach his claim to divine inspiration, but the implications are simply overlooked by members who which to maintain a rosy view of Joseph.

Instructions to Elders

Joseph closed his letter by giving counsel to the traveling elders of the church who were preaching the gospel in other parts of the nation. He indicated that the slaves should not have the gospel preached to them at all, but that the slavemasters should be converted and then taught to treat their slaves with kindness. As a final parting thought, Joseph indicated that the slaves themselves are obligated to serve their masters and should do so without complaint:

“All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact it would be much better, and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted, and then teach the masters to use them with kindness; remembering that they are accountable to God, and the servants are bound to serve their masters with singleness of heart, without murmuring.“ (“The Prophet’s Views on Abolition”, History of the Church Vol 2 p440, byu.edu)

We would see later that the instructions to LDS missionaries not to actively proselytize to black men and women would survive into the 20th century.

This joins with the notions of the Curse of Ham as further evidence that the ideas from church leaders that justified slavery also justified the ban on priesthood ordination and fueled institutional racism for over a century after the death of Joseph.

Summary

So to summarize Joseph’s views as articulated in this letter:

Black slaves represent a community of people, who might, if freed, overrun our country, and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity, and virtue.

Slaveowners are the best people to judge whether or not slavery is evil, and, if so, to construct the proper remedy.

People in the north have no business clamoring for the rights of slaves in the south, especially if they have never been to the south.

As the descendants of Ham, black people are cursed to be the “servants of servants” and as such slavery is a biblical practice endorsed by God.

Since Abraham was a righteous man and owned slaves – slavery is permitted by God.

Since the Mosaic law contained proscriptions for slaves, slavery is part of God’s will.

Men who try to alter the divine institution of slavery will be subject to God’s judgment.

Since God is our master and we are his servants, there is a divine pattern set for some men to be masters and others to be slaves.

Anyone who advocates against God’s order of slavery is proud, destitute of truth and prone to strife and contention. They should be repudiated.

Slaves should not be offered the Gospel – but their masters should be baptized and instructed to treat their slaves well.

Slaves should honor and obey their masters without complaint or murmuring.

Contemporary Opinions – Evan Lewis

Evan Lewis (artist’s rendition)

The issues of race, slavery, and abolition were not new in 1836, and Joseph Smith was not the only religious thinker applying verses in the bible to the issue of slavery.

Evan Lewis (1782-1834) was an active Quaker abolitionist and co-editor, with Marcus Gould, of the monthly journal The Friend, or Advocate of Truth (1828-1833). The Quakers were among the earliest religious denominations to take up the cause of the abolition of slavery in the states. In 1831 Lewis authored a prize-winning essay entitled “Address to Christians of All Denominations on the Inconsistency of Admitting Slave-Holders to Communion and Church Membership” (OpenLibrary.org) earning publication by the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.

In this essay, published 5 years earlier than Joseph’s letter to Oliver Cowdery above, Evans addresses many of the same arguments supporting a biblical rationale for slavery that Joseph Smith endorsed. As you will see, his position is altogether different from the Prophet’s. Since this publication preceded Joseph’s letter by several years, it is safe to assume that these very arguments are the ones that Joseph was arguing against.

Slavery is not Christian

Lewis Makes the strong case that it is entirely inconsistent for a professed Christian to tolerate the institution of slavery.:

“If we fulfil the injunction of our religion, to do to others as we would wish them to do unto us if we love our neighbour as ourselves, can we consign him and his posterity to hopeless and interminable slavery? Nay, are we not walking in the footsteps of the Scribes and Pharisees, who bound heavy burdens upon men’s shoulders, and would not move them with one of their fingers? And if we thus actively and knowingly violate the precepts of the gospel, and the commands of Jesus Christ, can we be Christians? Can we with any colour of justice call ourselves the disciples of Him who came to preach deliverance to the captive, and the opening of the prison doors to them that were bound?” (“Address to Christians…” Evan Lewis, pg. 11, archive.org)

Comparing the weak justifications for a pernicious evil offered by Joseph Smith to this bold statement grounded directly in the core teaching of Christ is a telling contrast.

Mosiac Law Inapplicable

“It has been said, in palliation of negro slavery, that the law of Moses recognized and sanctioned the practice of holding slaves. Such an argument would be more consistent in the mouth of a Jew than a Christian. Are we to turn from the precepts and authority of our Lord and Master, to the rituals of the Mosaic law which he came to fulfil and to abolish? Shall we leave the dispensation of the gospel, and go back for authority to that dispensation which was permitted only till the time of reformation? (“Address to Christians…” Evan Lewis, pg. 9, archive.org)

Lewis addresses the idea that since the Mosaic Law contained provisions about slavery, it is implied to receive God’s endorsement – he points out that such an argument might hold sway for a Jew, but should carry no weight with a follower of Christ:

Mosaic Law Incompatible

He then explains that even if you concede that Christians should be subject to the civil provisions of the law of Moses the argument is still invalid – the conditions of slavery among the Hebrews were entirely different than those that existed in the US:

“But granting, for the sake of argument, the civil provisions of the law of Moses to be obligatory upon us, the advocates of negro slavery would gain nothing by the admission. For we have already shown that the latter has no parallel in ancient history. If the comparatively mild system of servitude which existed among the Hebrews and the neighbouring nations, was sanctioned by the Jewish law-giver, does it follow that the more cruel and debasing bondage in which the negro race are held in theUnited States, would also have been tolerated? The many humane provisions contained in the law, in favour of the bond servant, prove the contrary provisions which, if admitted into our code, would be found incompatible with the present system. (“Address to Christians…” Evan Lewis, pg. 9, archive.org)

He goes point by point to dissect this assertion. He points out that under Hebrew law if a slave escaped, he was not under commandment to be returned to his master (a fact which later came into importance under the Fugitive Slave Act):

“That of Deuteronomy, xxiii. 15 and 16, would alone be sufficient to put an end to slavery in this country, and proves the mildness of servitude among the Hebrews. “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” (page 10, archive.org)

He reminds the reader that the act of stealing a man in the first place is punishable by death:

“Again: The penalty for man-stealing, by the 21st chapter of Exodus, verse 16th, is death. “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” The crime is ranked in immediate connexion with the capital offence of smiting or cursing father or mother, and the same punishment is awarded to each.” (page 10, archive.org)

Lewis goes on to point out that violence against a Hebrew slave could justify their immediate emancipation:

“The 26th and 27th verses of the same;chapter ordains, that “if a man smite the eye of his servant, or his handmaid, so that it perish; or if he smite out his servant’s tooth, he shall go free for the eye, or the tooth’s sake.” “ (page 10, archive.org)

He finishes his deconstruction of this argument by appealing to the same six-year limit that Joseph did, however, Lewis draws the conclusion that applying the law of Moses in such a manner is absolutely contradictory to the manner in which slavery is held in the States where there is no limitation on captivity at either 49 or 6 years:

“Besides, an effectual limit is put to that species of servitude practised among the Hebrews, in the 25th chapter of Leviticus, verse 51, which provides that the servant shall go out free in the year of Jubilee, “both he, and his children with him.” This provision is general, and applies to all servants, without distinction or nation, country or religion. But the Hebrew servant was to be free at the end of six years, the utmost limit of his servitude, which the law provides. “And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty. Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy flour, and out of thy winepress,” &c. (See Deut. xv. 12 to 14.)” (page 10, archive.org)

Lewis’ final statement on using Mosaic Law appeals to those who would base upon it their argument for slavery – at least allow those Mosaic provisions which defend the rights of the slave to be also included :

“If the Mosaic law is to be resorted to in justification of slavery, let us take the whole of it as it was given by the inspired law-giver; and let not the hapless servant be deprived of its lenient provisions in his favour. If we are to be Jews and not Christians, let us at least be consistent Jews, and conform literally to all the instructions of our law-giver.” (page 11, archive.org)

Lewis – Just some Christian guy

Evan Lewis was not a prophet. He did not claim any divine right or privilege to converse with God or carry God’s authority. His arguments against the rationalization that Joseph Smith would proffer 5 years later carry more biblical and scriptural validity and further harmonize better with the words of Christ in the New Testament and with our modern enlightened understanding of race and liberty. A person would have been closer to God’s view on this issue by following the assertions of the Quaker Evan Lewis in this essay, than following the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Implications for Contemporary Revelation

Examining just how terribly wrong Joseph was in his position is an interesting exercise, to be sure, but what is even more interesting is to look at what other things Joseph was doing at the time. Specifically, what revelations were coming to Joseph in April of 1836?

It turns out that there was a very significant event in the revelatory history of Joseph around that same time. The account of a revelation occurring on April 3, 1836, is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants Section 110.

The header to the section describes the circumstances of the event:

Visions manifested to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, April 3, 1836. The occasion was that of a Sabbath day meeting. Joseph Smith’s history states: “In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lord’s Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us.”

(Header, D&C Section 110, lds.org)

What follows is one of the most important events of the last dispensation. The Lord Jehovah (Christ) appears, forgives their sins and accepts the Kirtland Temple as His house (verses 5-10). Next Moses appears and gives them the Keys of the Gathering of Israel (verse 11). Then Elias appears and commits to them the dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham. Finally, Elijah the Prophet appears in fulfillment of prophecy and declares that they have received the keys of the final dispensation.

This sounds like a wonderful and glorious event! All the big names are there – Jehovah! Moses! Elias! Elijah! – wait…. Elias and Elijah? Um… something’s off there. Elias is just the greek form of the name Elijah. They are just different names for the same person. In the King James version of the Old Testament, the Prophet in question goes by the name Elijah. In the King James New Testament, this prophet is always referred to by the name “Elias”. The name Elias does not appear in the Old Testament and the name Elijah does not appear in the New Testament. If you were not familiar with the linguistic and historical background, then you might think that they were two different people.

In April 1836 Joseph was clearly deficient in his ability to discern God’s truth from error in the simple matter of human equality yet he spoke so authoritatively in justification of slavery as a divine institution. The spirit of prophecy and revelation and the Holy Ghost and any and all other claimed authorities and privileges of his station did not make the most basic truth plain to him. Given that doctrinal snafu it is entirely possible that he didn’t realize that Elias and Elijah were the same person – and if that scriptural fumble is legitimate, then it throws one of the most pivotal revelations of the “last dispensation” into serious question.

Conclusion

Joseph Smiths obscure letter is remarkably revealing of his attitude towards the issues of race and slavery. It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith relies on the fact that Abraham conversed with God and was instructed of God and still held to his servants – justifying the institution of slavery. Most faithful church members would describe Joseph in a similar way – as a man who conversed with God and was instructed and directed by him. In fact, many people use the very same justification to excuse Joseph of his unorthodox polygamy – “well he was the Prophet, so it must have been ordained of God”

This letter shows that in 1836 Joseph Smith still held to Slavery as a divinely instituted construct. While his Presidential platform in 1844 called for an end to slavery, Joseph never disavowed the scriptural interpretation which places slavery as a divinely sanctioned institution. We see this concept of slavery as a distasteful and undesirable, yet divinely instituted practice echoed in the sentiments of Brigham Young. In January of 1852, Brigham stated the following

“I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences; I am not authorized to remove it. I am a firm believer in slavery.“

(Address to Utah Legislature, Brigham Young, 23 Jan 1852, lds.org and archive.org)

The main point of our examination here is to observe that while Joseph looked into the scriptures and saw a justification for slavery, other contemporary Christian thinkers outside of Mormonism looked at those same scriptures and did not find justification that required their continued tolerance or support of slavery.

What are modern church members to make of the fact that Christians outside the Mormon faith were closer to God on the issue of race than the Prophet? The fact that modern prophets today have completely denounced the attitudes that Joseph Smith articulates in this letter would appear to show that either God has changed in his attitudes towards black people or that Joseph Smith was not conversant with or instructed by God on this issue.

This post is part of the Thoughts on Race collection. Click here for more.

P.S. PBS Documentary – The Abolitionists

There is an excellent documentary on the Abolitionist movement produced by PBS parts of which I have embedded below. It is remarkable to see how people even before Joseph Smith’s time grappled with the issue of slavery from within their religious contexts and did not feel compelled to support it from that footing.