Recently, BYU’s prominently displayed statue of Brigham Young (standing directly outside the entrance of the Abraham Smoot building, known as the ASB) was covered with a dousing of red paint, the words “racist” painted along its base. A former BYU alumni and colleague of mine posted to his Facebook the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage on the incident[1], with his caption, “should racist people be called racist?” His words, and the actions of those who redded Young’s statue, reflect a very real frustration within the rising generation that seems to send this message loud and clear---the narrative of race, prophetic role and fallibility, and church history as a whole has to change.
In regards to Brigham Young being a racist, it seems ridiculous and yet understandable (given the church’s narrative on its racist past) that many still balk at that particular adjective. Instead, many prefer to emphasize that he was many other things as well---frontiersman, visionary, prophet, seer, revelator, and of course infamous polygamist. Obviously, to LDS faithful, some titles associated to Brigham Young’s name better reflect their idea of what a prophet IS, and many titles (though accurate) are, for many, better forgotten.
Former generations of LDS either adopted, denied, or whitewashed (sometimes all three!) uncomfortable pieces of history, usually justifying that position with a statement made by a church leader, giving that particular perspective a kind of pseudo-church approval. A most popular one is if course former president Gordon B. Hinckley’s statement on the church’s racial history (when asked during a now-famous interview with Mike Wallace), “It's behind us. Look, that's behind us.”[2] With current racial tensions within the U.S and the world, the reality that the LDS church’s unique history of doctrinal statements on race is anything but behind us, and those ideologies within the church’s history are rooted like noxious weeds within contemporary church culture.
It has been suggested that the difference between John Huss’ ideas being widely heard, distributed, and considered and those of Martin Luther was the miracle of the printing press. In that light, it may also well be said that in our generation, the internet is doing for reform of the LDS church what the printing press did for Luther in allowance of the spread of ideas, counter-narratives, discussions, etc. Indeed, it seems clear that this recently-surfaced agitation is reflective of the fact that previous church-sanctioned narratives on its messy history are no longer holding water for many LDS faithful, and perhaps a paradigm shift is at hand.
One might argue that perhaps the church has indeed addressed its problematic history with race through its 2013 essay on Race and the Priesthood.[3]However, as shown in the below dialogue taken from a Facebook conversation, it is clear that until the church formally reads the specific essay over the pulpit or has local Bishops read the document as a letter “from the Fist Presidency,” too many members simply are not aware that this document exists or what it implies. For those that are aware, too many dismiss the implications of the essay, because it lacks (as shown below) a “thus saith the Lord.”
The following is a transcript taken from a Facebook conversation I took screenshots of (shown in the photos attached to this essay):
John Doe 1: “Have you not read the current prophets have condemned all of the former prophet’s racist teachings? Black skin was never a curse according to current theology. Sad that it took until 2013 to realize this but at least they finally got it there. Your comments are disturbing and racist.”
John Doe 2: “can you please cite a general authority denouncing the curse? I’ve been looking for a long time and never found a quote.”
John Doe 1: “2013 essay”
John Doe 2: “that’s a church webpage, yes, but its not the words uttered by prophets. It’s essentially more like the manuals than conference talks. It cites talks denouncing racism, but provides no source for its claim that the church denounces the theories. So in other words, that essay in itself is the only place where the church ever says it denounces the theory. I want to know which conference talk or press release or announcement or proclamation or whichever was the source of that claim on the web page.”
John Doe 2: “Manuals and publications have a funny way of rephrasing past prophets lol”
John Doe 1: “Later the Deseret News interview clarified that all the essays were approved of the apostles and prophets and were authoritative. So its collective voice. Not one. Which makes it doctrine according to the new definition.”
The reality that two random LDS persons would provide contradictory definitions to what constitutes “doctrine” is, then, not that surprising when one considers the exchange above as well as the following statement given by current church president Russel M. Nelsen to BYU students that “Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!”[4] While no doubt well intended, this statement clashes, and in an ugly way, with the reality that in the church’s 2013 essay on Race and the Priesthood, what was taught by prophets at one time has since been disavowed. Thus, the need for work on our systematic theology is glaringly apparent.
In classical Biblical studies, an approach to proper study of the Bible is one that includes the reality that the Bible is in fact a complex book (as opposed to somehow having floated magically down from heaven in its intact form, never mind the fact that the protestant form varies from the Catholic form, which varies from the Orthodox form), and no specific argument as to its origins is in fact 100% accurate. This position is espoused by Pastor David Lose, who discusses the “big three” theories that are most popular when discussing Biblical origins (Holy Dictation, Imperial Decree, Forgeries and Falsehoods)[5]. I find that the same paradigm could be a healthy approach to LDS history, as one recognizes that there were many factors other than the divine that in fact influenced policy, doctrine, happenings, etc.
Kenton Sparks, professor of Christian Studies at Eastern University, offers a method for this approach in his book “Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture.” Sparks’ approach works through the lens that just as holy scripture was written by those in need of redemption, scripture itself, though holy, is in need of redemption and is redeemed through God’s plan in Jesus Christ. I suggest that perhaps LDS can take this one step further, in looking at their own history, and openly admit that their history is in need of redemption. After all, what else could one’s history be other than fallen if indeed we view the world through the lens of humanity’s fallen state?
Lastly, I would further propose that a kind of “Lutherian” paradigm be applied as we attempt to systematize LDS theology. While not quite adopting the adage of “sola scriptura,” there is indeed place for the scriptures to once again take prominence in our theology. While perhaps unintended, LDS culture seems to have shifted from its origins of the prominence of the Book of Mormon to the means in which it came to us---prophets. While indeed one could argue that we wouldn’t have scripture if we didn’t have prophets, we must also hold true that not ALL scripture comes from a prophetic hand (specifically in the Biblical texts), and equally true, not all words that come from whose we hold as “prophets, seers, and revelators” is to be understood as scripture. Thus, the “redemptive work” (to use Spark’s paradigm) of defining and refining LDS theology starts with, at least, acknowledging and owning hard parts of our history---and in answer to my friend’s question: yes, Brigham Young should be called racist. Perhaps we can start there?
[1] https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/06/19/statue-brigham-young/?fbclid=IwAR16uOWryyLFO1JMPsjFVCDgKPCttSX7FXPSiLmfWv_cCVXPEf3S4_NQ9wM [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/an-interview-with-gordon-hinckley/2/ [3] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng [4] https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-09-17/president-nelson-byu-devotional-god-love-160666 [5] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/where-did-the-bible-come-_b_893765
Comments