The Mormon Faith & Black Folks
Question #38
Q. Didn’t Joseph Smith himself at one time approved of
Negro slavery, and condemned Abolitionists?
A. Yes. Joseph Smith did condemn abolition in the
early 1830s. In the 1830s the Prophet Joseph Smith seemed to agree with
slavery. In 1836 he wrote:
“I do not believe that the people of the North have
any more right to say that the South shall not have slaves, than the South have
to say the North shall.
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.”
(Messenger and Advocate 2:289)
The Prophet Joseph Smith, like many in his day,
believed that African slavery was a result of the Curse of Canaan. The Prophet
once wrote:
“It is my privilege then to name certain passages from
the 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).” (Elders’ Journal,
July 1838, p.42)
*The Curse of Canaan
In Genesis it says that after the Great Flood was over
Noah grew a vineyard, and one day got drunk off of the wine he fermented. It
says that Ham, the sons of Noah, “uncovered his nakedness”. Because of this
Noah became angry at Ham, but didn’t curse Ham; he cursed Canaan and his
descendants to be the “servant of servants” unto the descendants of Shem and
Japheth; the other sons of Noah. The Jews accepted this as their belief that
Canaanites were “dogs” (servants). This was also accepted by the Roman Catholic
Church, and was a reason they gave to justify the enslavement of Negroes. This
was also accepted by Martin Luther and most Protestant leaders. This was accepted by the Puritans; the first
whites to settle in North America. This was also accepted by the Southern
whites who owned black slaves, and who founded the Confederacy.
Abolitionists, who were mostly Northerners, usually
did not accept this. They argued that the Curse of Canaan applied only to the
ancient Canaanites, and not to black Negroes who had no relation to Canaan.
They preached that Negroes were the descendants of Cush, or Mizraim, but not
Canaan. Therefore, they said, the Curse of Canaan applies to Canaanites, and
not to Negroes.
The Book of Abraham presents the ancient Egyptians as being of “the blood of Canaan”. This
would be true if in fact the Canaanites intermingled with the other sons of
Ham, or in fact if Mizraim, Cush, and Put (who settled in Africa) were in fact
the sons of Canaan. There is no Hebrew word for “grandsons” other than “sons”.
The Bible itself does not preach against servitude.
The Apostle Paul wrote:
“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 eye service 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 bond 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.”
(Ephesians 6:5-9)
The Prophet Joseph Smith commented:
“Here is a lesson which might be profitable for all to
learn; and the principle upon which the Church was anciently governed, is so
plainly set forth, that an eye of truth might see and understand. 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 truth 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.” (History of the Church 2:439)
But there is a difference between ‘servitude’ and
‘slavery’; a big difference.
The Prophet Joseph Smith did condemn “abolitionists”
in 1833; soon after the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia. Nathaniel Turner was
a black slave who claimed that a black angel visited him and commanded him to
free the Negroes from slavery. Turner ran away from his master and gained a
following of run-away and free Negroes. His methods were violent, and his
rebellion ended-up with the deaths of many innocent people; both black and
white. He was hanged, and his rebellion failed. Not only did it fail, but it
inspired the Southern states to cease their liberalizing of the rights of
slaves, and it also ended the Southern white colonialist movement which sought
to free blacks and repatronize them to Africa. It was, for the Negroes and
those whites in the South who wanted blacks free, a total and absolute
disaster.
Joseph Smith
did condemn radical Abolitionists who advocated violence, or who sought to free
blacks without thought of the impact of the Southern economy or how blacks
would fair in the South. To avoid these problems, Joseph Smith recommended that
Congress sell federal public lands (at that time the federal government, in the
name of the people, owned millions of acres of land) and use the money to
purchase the slaves, and then either to send the freed black slaves into Mexico
(where classism existed but not racism), or to “educate them and give
them equal rights”. The Prophet knew that without these collateral moves the
blacks would not be freed without violence, and the freed blacks would not be
equal to the whites. History has proven him correct. Although blacks were free,
their lives changed very little. They were soon on the bottom-half of a caste
system, and apartheid-like laws kept them powerless and most often poor.
The servitude that existed in the time of Abraham (who
had servants) and Israel was much different than the slavery of the South in the United
States at the time of Joseph Smith!. Servants in the time of Abraham was considered part of the family;
although they did not have equal rights to sons and daughters in regards to
inheritance. Southern slavery did contain such patriarchal attitudes on occasion, but
stealing people from Africa, bringing them across the ocean in chains and horrible living conditions where up to half
would perish, and then treating them like animals was not a noble system of
servitude but rather an evil and corrupt institution that the Prophet came out squarely
and openly against in the 1840s; when he became more familiar with the Southern system of slavery.
Please feel free to e-mail Darrick Evenson
This article is not copyrighted.
Return to Main Page