The Mormon Faith & Black Folks
Question #40
Q. I've heard that in Utah black folks were
discriminated against. Is this true?
A. Yes. But isn't that true everywhere in the United
States at that time! But Utah was not a place were black folks faced a lot
of discrimination. Certainly they faced much more of it in the South, and many
other parts of the United States.
To understand discrimination in Utah one must first
understand the demographics of Utah. There is a perception in some parts
of the African-American Community that Utah is "Mormon Land" and that
the Church controls everything and the Mormons own everything
in the State.
But this is simply not the case!
*The LDS Church does NOT own or control Utah!
The Church owns one newspaper, one radio station, one
television station, one department store, one university, one college, several
office buildings, a cannery, several farms, several ranches, and the land on
about 11 square blocks of downtown Salt Lake City; 5 of which house Church
offices. Of course, the Church owns the temples, and chapels and the land under
them; but these are not money-making sites.
Utah is not dominated by the Church nor by
Latter-day Saints. Although "Mormons" make-up 70% of Utah's population, that
figure is somewhat misleading. This is true because half (50%) of all Mormons
in Utah are "Jack Mormons".
Jack Mormons
A Jack Mormon is a person who was baptized into
the Church (usually at age 8), but who has since fallen-away from it. They
don't attend Church meetings, they don't believe in The Book of Mormon,
they don't accept Joseph Smith as a true Prophet, and they don't believe the
Church is true (many believe all religions or true, or none are
true). Most of them smoke and or drink alcohol. They are not Ex-Mormons¡¦
because they've never joined another religion, and they've never been
excommunicated. They usually just fall-away from the Church, and are never seen
in Church again.
But, if you ask a Jack Mormon what religion they are they'll
usually say, "I'm a Mormon". This means they were raised in the Church, or
baptized into it at some point, but they don't believe in it. They don't
listen to nor follow the directions of Church officials. Some of them are
bitter against the Church. Most are just totally apathetic. Yet, they will
often identify themselves as a "Mormon". because they were raised one, or
because that is what their family is. Jack Mormons call themselves Mormons
like Jewish people who don't believe in Judaism nor practice it call themselves
Jews.
Jack Mormons are "Mormons" in name only.
Active and faithful Members of the Church in Utah
usually don't refer to themselves as "Mormons" but "LDS" or simply "Members".
They do this in order to distinguish themselves from Jack Mormons who will often call
themselves "Mormons". Latter-day Saints don't want to be confused with them. It
is an insult to refer to a Latter-day Saint as a
Jack Mormon". It is like
calling them a hypocrite. Active and faithful Members of the Church say,
"I'm LDS" or "I'm a Member", but rarely do they say, "I'm a Mormon"; because this is what many Jack Mormons will often say. It
is not an insult to refer to Latter-day Saints as Mormons; many outside
of Utah do so. But many active Latter-day Saints in Utah don't refer to
themselves as Mormons because Jack Mormons also refer to
themselves by this title.
Since only 50% of Mormons in Utah are LDS (i.e.
active and faithful Members of the Church), this means that Utah is about 35%
Latter-day Saint; a large minority of the population of the State.
Non-Mormons in Utah are called "Gentiles" (pronounced "Jen-tiles") or "Non-Members". Jack Mormons are called "Jack Mormons" or "Inactives" by Members (active Members of the Church), and "Mormons" or occassionally "Jack Mormons" by Gentiles (non_Members). Active faithful and believing Members of the Church are
called LDS, Members, Saints, or, on rare occasions, Mormons.
Gentiles call both Jack Mormons and faithful and active Members as Mormons. Often, when they see a Jack
Mormon smoking or drinking, or doing something bad, they think it is an active
Member of the Church, and thus think Mormons are hypocrites; playing righteous
on Sunday then going to a bar on Friday night. Jack Mormons refer to faithful
and believing Members of the Church as "Practicing Mormons".
The 35% of Utahns who are active Members (Mormons who
attend Church services) can be further divided into four groups:
1. Orthodox Mormons. Those who believe that the
Church is true, and is led by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. They are
believing and faithful. They believe that the Church is today, as yesterday,
guided by the LORD; what is decreed by The First Presidency is the will and
mind of the LORD. About 80% to 85% of all active Members of the Church in Utah
are Orthodox Mormons.
2. Sunstone Mormons. Those who believe that the
Church is true, and is led by Prophets, but that they are inspired of God in some
things, but not in others. They are called "Sunstone Mormons" because
many of them read Sunstone magazine; a liberal publication published by liberal, humanist, and "New Age" Members of the Church. These
are people who believe that the Priesthood~ban was wrong, a mistake; definitely not
inspired of God! They also believe that the Church is wrong in it's policies
regarding abortion, homosexuality, and women in the Priesthood. They are biding-their-time
until one day, they believe, the Church will reverse itself on these issues; as the Church "reversed itself" (they believe) on the issue of blacks and the Priesthood.
About 5% to 10% of active Members of the Church in Utah are Sunstone Mormons.
3. Sunday Mormons.. These are people who "play the part" of active Members, but don't really believe it. These people lead what is called "double-lives". On the outside they appear as faithful Members (active Latter-day Saints), but privately, they don't believe it. Unlike "Jack Mormons", who are openly non-believers, "Sunday Mormons" pretend to be believers and are active in Church and hold Church positions and callings. Some are even bishops and stake presidents. Sunday Mormons exist in Utah because in Utah there are family, social, and business reasons and benefits in being, or appearing to be, a faithful Member. Most Members trust other Members, but they may not trust a Gentile (Non-Member) or Jack Mormon. So, if a man is in a business in Utah that somehow depends upon clients of customers "trusting" him, then he'll do much better appearing as an active Member than he will a Gentile or Jack Mormon. Even some Gentiles and Jack Mormons trust active Members (Latter-day Saints) more than they would a fellow Gentile or Jack Mormon. So, there are certain benefits for businessmen and salesmen in Utah to be active Members of the Church. Also, about 30% to 40% of active LDS females in Utah get married to Gentile (non-Member) men. Often these men are pressured considerably by their Mormon wives to become baptized and eventually become active Priesthood-holders so the men can take their wives to a temple and be "sealed" to them (thereby assuring the woman she will get an Eternal Marriage--the goal of every faithful Mormon). Some of these men do in fact become truly converted. However, many are simply trying to "keep the wife happy". Certainly, for a Gentile man in Utah who marries an active Mormon woman (a Member) there are family, marriage, and, in many cases, business reasons to "play the part" of an active Member and be a "Sunday Mormon". Unfortunately, the phenomenon of "Sunday Mormons" convinces many Gentiles and Jack Mormons in Utah that Mormons are "hypocrites" or many of them are; because they know "Mormons" who are really "Sunday Mormons"; who lead hypocritical double-lives that they see, but other active Members (who do not go to bars, etc.) do not see. It is impossible to say what percentage of active Members in Utah are "Sunday Mormons", but I would guess it would be about 3% to 5%.
4. Fundamentalist 'Mormons' These are people who
believe that the Church is in error, even that it has apostatized (fallen-away)
from the Truth. They believe that the current leaders of the Church are not
inspired of God, but have bowed-the-knee to Ba'al (the Devil), and are have
turned Zion (the Church) into Babylon (the evil World).
Fundamentalist 'Mormons'
Before 1978, when the Priesthood ban was
removed, about 3% of active Members of the Church in Utah
could be described as Fundamentalist Mormons. However, when the Church
granted blacks (actually "Hamites" of any race or skin-color) the Priesthood in 1978, the great majority of them soon left the
Church; believing that the President of the Church made a 'pact with Satan' in
granting blacks the Priesthood; even that Satan appeared to him in the Holy of
Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and commanded him to give the Priesthood to
them. Such a thought for Orthodox Mormons is utterly blasphemous.
After the 1978 Revelation many of the Fundamentalists joined apostate groups, or
formed their own small churches; all claiming that the LDS Church was
"apostate" (fallen), and they only they were the 'True Latter-day Saints'. These are known as Apostate Groups or
Polygamist Groups; because most practice polygamy; not practiced by the
Church since the turn of the century.
The Brethren (LDS Church leaders) don't like the Fundamentalists calling themselves
'Fundamentalist Mormons' because they are not members of the LDS Church (hence--they are not "Mormons"). Actually, about 10% to 20% of Fundamentalists are Members of the Church (although many or most are not active--they don't attend LDS Church services nor obey LDS Church leaders--"The Brethren").
These are people who are often (but not always) moderate
racists; believing that they are superior to Negroes, but that black folks
should be treated with respect and dignity nevertheless. Before 1978 and
thereafter, we would guess that they comprised about 3% of LDS Church
membership in Utah. Since most left the Church or were excommunicated, the number today would be very very small.
There are few Fundamentalist Mormons (who are
actually Mormons) remaining in the Church. The few who remain believe
the Church is corrupt and apostate, and that LDS leaders are uninspired, but
that the Priesthood is still true, and they remain in order to get the
ordinances of the Temple; believing themselves the only 'True Mormons' and
indeed the only ones who are truly reaping Priesthood and Temple benefits. When
they appear before their bishops and stake presidents for temple recommends,
the written authorization to enter the Temple and perform ordinances, they are
asked if they sustain the President and Apostles of the Church as "Prophets,
Seers, and Revelators"(their divine titles). Fundamentalist 'Mormons'do
not believe or sustain them as such, but in order to get into the temples
they lie and reply "Yes". Because of pride, these few
"Members" (no more than 1 in 200 in Utah) justify their feelings of racial
superiority. Again, 95% of Fundamentalist
'Mormons' are not Members of the LDS Church. Church
officials do not like these people referred to as "Fundamentalist Mormons"
because in fact they aren't
Members of the Church; or at least 95% are not
Members of the Church. The LDS Church goes to great lengths to disassociate
itself from these people.
When these
people are discovered, they are excommunicated from the Church. Thus, they have
less claim to the name Mormons than even the Jack Mormons. Fundamentalist 'Mormons' are really "Ex-Mormons". In
politics, Fundamentalist "Mormons"
(as they call themselves) support
moderate racist parties like the Populist Party or the Independent American
Party.
Here is an approximate breakdown of Utah in regards to the groups we've discussed above:
27.5% Gentile (non-Mormon)
35% Jack Mormon (non-LDS)
2.5%
Fundamentalist 'Mormon' (non-LDS)
35% Orthodox
Mormon/Sunstone Mormon (LDS)
This is the way it has been for many decades. The
majority of Utahns (65% or more) do not believe in the Mormon Faith; nor adhere
to The Brethren (Church Officials).
These figures are only approximates, but they
show that the Mormons don't
control Utah; although they have a strong
influence in the State. Believing Latter-day Saints make up 35% or less of the
population, and those who do not believe or follow the Church or its
officials make up 65% or greater.
Whenever a Jack Mormon (inactive non-believers) or a
Fundamentalist 'Mormon'(95% are not Members of the Church) discriminates
against a black person in Utah, it is blamed on the LDS Church. Not only
that, but when a Gentile (non-Mormon) in Utah discriminates against a black
person, it is blamed on the LDS Church. This is not to say
that active Members of the Church never have discriminated against black folks;
some no doubt have. This is only
to state the fact that any and all discrimination in Utah
is blamed on the LDS Church, and that this is in fact prejudicial
and unfair to the Church and to active Latter-day Saints.
*Overview of anti-Black discrimination in Utah
Initially, when Utah was 98% Mormon, black folks
couldn't
vote or hold public-office. Indeed, white folks who weren't
Priesthood-officers couldn't
hold public offices. The Priesthood in the Church is somewhat
like the military; there are Priesthood-officers and Priesthood-holders;
like officers and enlisted. Only Bishops and above are Priesthood-officers, and
only they held public offices in the Provisional State of Deseret.
The Church at that time felt that the LORD directed
the Priesthood, and that the Priesthood should direct the government. There was
no "Separation between Church and State"; a clause which is not in the
Constitution nor the Bill of Rights but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to
some Baptists in Maryland who complained about paying taxes to the State-Church
of Maryland, the Roman Catholic Church. The LDS Church was not the State-Church
of Utah, but Utah was a Church-State.
Theocracy was considered the best form of government by the Latter-day Saints.
Theocracy was considered the best form of government; with democracy as
the second best form.
The U.S. government wouldn't
stand for a Church-State
coalition, and demanded that this change. In 1867, democratic reform was enacted
by the predominantly Utah Legislature; in accordance with their status as a
Territory of the United States. At that time, the voters of Utah, at that time
overwhelmingly Mormon, voted 14,000 to 30,
to grant black men the vote (Neither White Nor Black,
p.114 note 112). At a time when Utah was overwhelmingly Mormons (with very few Gentiles or Jack Mormons), the Utah voters overwhelmingly voted to give blacks the vote.
At that time there were only a hundred or so black settlers in Utah. Eventually, more came into the state, but not much more.
Some of them formed their own community in Salt Lake Valley; called Fort
Union. This was a farm community, and the land was given to them by the
LDS Church. That settlement survived for many years. Some of them, not many,
were converts to the Church; even though the men knew they couldn't become
Priesthood-holders in mortal life. But the Church did not attract
many black converts; because of the Priesthood ban.
Black folks didn't
migrate to Utah as they did to
other states; because Utah was not industrial-based, but agriculturally-based.
Blacks left an agriculturally-based economy in the South and headed for the
industrial cities of the North, Mid-West, and California. The only exception was Ogden, Utah, which
became a major railroad hub in the West. Many blacks worked for the railroads,
and 1 or 2 thousand of them settled in Ogden; which was a city most often controlled
by the Gentiles (Non-mormons).
The first review of discrimination in Utah was with
the Selvin Committee in 1947. It found that Negroes were banned in 27% of public accommodations (hotels and motels), 30% in private
(non-government) employment, and 37% of Utah employers did not provide Negroes
with equal pay for equal work. (Utah Senate Journal, 1947,
pp.65-68)
Looking at this from the other side meant that 73% of
public accommodations accepted blacks, as did 70% of Utah private employers.
Also, 63% of Utah employers offered blacks equal pay for equal work. This
study, like later ones, did not ask these owners and employers who was a
Gentile, Jack Mormon, or active Latter-day Saint.
In 1947, a white Mormon named Virgil H. Sponberg wrote
to The First Presidency and asked them whether "we as Latter-day Saints are
required to associate with the Negroes or talk the Gospel with them...?" The
First Presidency (the three senior Apostles of the Church which lead and direct it) wrote back and said:
"No special effort has ever been made to proselyte
among the Negro race, and social intercourse between the Whites and the Negroes
should certainly not be encouraged because of it leading to intermarriage,
which the Lord has forbidden." (Neither White Nor Black, p.89)
The second review of civil-rights in Utah came in
1953. In an article titled
"The Negro in Utah", the author Wallace P. Bennett,
reporting to the NAACP, reported "Near
equality" in public schools, full access for blacks in housing, public
facilities, public transportation, and voting.
However, he also found that some segregation and discrimination existed
in employment, some of the
"better restaurants" many of the "leading hotels"
and in several amusement parks. (Utah Law Review, Spring 1953)
The studies showed no evidence of institutional
racism, but much evidence of individual racism in Utah.
In 1954 another white Mormon, Chauncey D. Harris,
asked about social intercourse between white Mormons and Negroes. Joseph
Anderson, Secretary to The First Presidency, wrote back on May 4, 1954, stating
that the Church "discourages all social relationships and associations between
the races, as among its members, that might lead to such marriages....", but
that the Church believed that
all men, without regard to race or color" were
entitled to ÅÇull civil-rights and liberties, social, economic, and political,
as provided in the Constitution and laws.¡¦(Neither White nor Black,
p.127)
In 1955 the Utah legislature enacted Resolution No. 8
(Resolution Reaffirming Equal Rights of All Citizens of the U.S. and of Utah):
"Whereas, the government of the US, through its
Legislative, Judicial and Executive departments, is making great strides toward
the fulfillment of the American dream that equal rights be accorded to all
citizens of the United States; and
Whereas, citizens of so-called minority groups have
and are continuing to distinguish themselves in all fields of endeavor, and
especially in government, science, art, music, the theater, industry, and in
athletic efforts; and
Whereas the principles of equal rights, which are
declared to be self-evident in our Declaration of Independence, are which are
guaranteed by the Constitution of this great country, and which are also stated
in the Constitution of our own state; and
Whereas, America's future greatness may depend in part
upon the ability of all her citizens to harmoniously live and work and fight
together to meet the challenge of any foe or adversary, from within or without
our shores;
Now therefore, be it resolved, that the people of
Utah, through their Legislature, in assembly, be cognizant and mindful of the
fundamental rights and privileges guaranteed to all citizens of the great
state."(Laws of Utah, 1955, p.382)
The next review of discrimination in Utah, in 1957,
was conducted for the Salt Lake City Branch of the NAACP. The final report was
written by Elmer R. Smith (a Gentile) and called The Status of the Negro in
Utah: Prepared for the Salt Lake City Branch of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People. The report concluded that 47.6% of restaurants,
nightclubs, and taverns didn't serve Negroes, and that they were also barred
from fraternal organizations such as the Masonic Lodge, Elk Lodges, Odd Fellow
Lodges, and fraternities and sororities. (The Status of the Negro in
Utah, pp.6-7)
Some Latter-day Saints owned restaurants, but they
didn't own taverns. They were forbidden to use alcohol. Only Jack Mormons or Gentiles (non-mormons) in Utah drank
or ran taverns. Active Latter-day Saints did not own or frequent nightclubs,
which were also alcohol-based establishments; although Jack Mormons and Gentiles often did.
Mormons were banned from the Masonic Lodges of Utah
from the early 1860s until about 1992. The Masonic Lodge of Utah was in fact very
anti-Mormon.
Active Latter-day Saints did not join fraternal
organizations such as the Elks, Odd Fellows, etc. The Church officials told them that the Priesthood (for men) and
the Relief Society (for women) were the only fraternity they needed, and
that they should spend their time and efforts there. Gentiles and Jack Mormons
joined these organizations; not Latter-day Saints.
Active Latter-day Saints did often join fraternities while at university, but these fraternities were headquartered in other states, and run by non-mormons who wrote their own rules for these fraternities. Gentile
fraternities were national organizations; with rules and policies established outside
of Utah. The LDS sorority (Lamda
Delta Sigma) and the LDS fraternity (Sigma Gamma Chi ) have always allowed
black members; as long as they were also Members of the Church.
The 1957 report also found individual racism in
housing contracts (called
Covenants") in Utah. An owner of a house could put
in their covenant (intent-to-sell contract) that a real estate agency could not sell to a person who is
black, or Indian, or not "of the white race". This occurred. However, not
enough of that occurred to create black districts or ghettos in Salt Lake City. A black "section" did exist in Ogden; which was known as "Utah's Gentile City" because the majority of it's white inhabitants within city limits were Gentile (non-mormon); while most Mormons lived on farms outside of the city. The report found
blacks living among whites in both Salt Lake City and Ogden.
"There are no Negro towns" in Salt Lake City (at that time overwhelmingly Mormon). The study also found that while there was a "Negro section" in Ogden, black residents were found living among whites in other parts of the city and county. "There are no blocks in
either city where Caucasians and other groups do not live along-side Negro
residents." ( Status, p.12)
This finding was significant; since every city in the U.S. at that time had "Negro towns" where blacks were required (often by law or city ordinance) to live. Neither Salt Lake City nor Ogden had such ordinances.
The next review of civil-rights came in 1959 by the
Utah State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. They
reported basically the same as the earlier study, but commented on the attitude
they found among white Utahns:
"Generally, Utahns can and do pride themselves on
being free from racial prejudice."(Deseret News, April 15, 1959)
Of course, this shows that the great majority of white
Utahns didn't think discrimination and segregation occurred in Utah; when in
fact some did. This is because of two reasons:
1. There were only about 4500 blacks in Utah in the
1950s; almost all of them living in Ogden and Salt Lake City. Most white Utahns didn't know a black person
personally. They never saw with their own eyes when a black man or woman were
discriminated against either by being denied employment or being denied
entrance into a restaurant or hotel or amusement park.
2. There was no institutional discrimination of
blacks in Utah like there was in the South and some cities of the Mid-West.
There were no "Jim Crow Laws" that prevented blacks folks from going where they
wanted to go, working where they wanted to work, being forced to sit in the
back of a bus, being limited in their opportunities in voting and other
civil-rights, or living where they
wanted to live. But there was individual discrimination. Some theaters,
some bowling-allies, some restaurants, and some hotels refused to service
blacks. Some real estate agents didn't
sell homes to black people if the owner didn't want them to. Some employers
didn't hire black people if they didn't want to. The Salt Lake City Council
made it illegal in 1934 (long before the civil-rights movement) to refuse to serve a person in a public
establishment because of race .(Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City,
Utah, p.270).
In 1960 and again in 1963 the Salt Lake City chapter
of the NAACP organized boycotts of the Salt Lake City Woolworths
department store; because its lunch counter refused to serve black folks. Woolworths
was a national chain headquartered in New York City, but with most stores in
the South. It was not owned or run by Mormons; although Mormons certainly must
have worked for the store in Salt Lake City.
Black folks were not allowed in the dance halls at Saltair
and Lagoon amusement parks. Saltair had been owned by the Church, but
had been sold to private investors before these studies were made. No records
exist as to the religion of the new owners; nor if blacks were forbidden from
the dance halls while the Church owned Saltair. Lagoon was not owned by the Church either. But it was located in
the town of Farmington; a small community founded by Mormons; man y from the South. A city ordinance in
Farmington forbade interracial dancing, and the Lagoon obeyed that until the
mid 1960s. Other Utah cities which were predominantly Mormon did not have
such a city ordinance. Blacks were allowed in both amusement parks, but
interracial dancing was not allowed until the mid 1960s. This was also common
in just about all parts of the Unites States during this time period.
In 1859, a year before the Civil War, a Gentile (non-mormon)
journalist for the New York Times traveled to Salt Lake City, which at that
time it was 95% Mormon, and he issued this report:
"Two Negro Balls [dances] were given this week, at
which I am informed by eye witnesses, some ten or a dozen white women attended
and danced with the negroes in perfect freedom and familiarity. White men were
also mixed in and were dancing with the negro wenches. In fact, it presented
the most disgusting of spectacles--negro men and women, and Mormon men and
women, all dancing on terms of perfect equality."(New York Times, 7
Feb., 1859)
It is impossible to say how many of the restaurants,
beauty parlors, theaters, and hotels were owned by Mormons or Gentiles. It is
impossible to know if the owners were faithful Members of the Church (LDS), or
Jack Mormons, or Gentiles (non-Mormons), or Fundamentalist (Apostates). Woolworth
was certainly Gentile (non-mormon) owned, but we
don't know about the other cases. The studies did not ask these questions. The
same is true for the employers who refused to hire blacks.
Several black men have claimed over the years that the
Hotel Utah, owned by the LDS Church, refused them rooms (this was back in the
50s and early 60s). However, it is certain that other blacks did in fact
stay at the Hotel Utah during those times; including some quite famous ones.
Some claim this was only preferential treatment to prominent blacks. It
may be that, or it may be that some of the desk clerks were
discriminatory, and others were not. The Church didn't have any written policy that we
could find prohibiting blacks from the hotel. There are records of blacks
staying at the Hotel Utah. There are also accounts of blacks being refused. The "desk clerk" or manager on that particular day seemed to be the deciding factor as to whether blacks were allowed to stay or not.
*NAACP pressures the Church to support legislation
During the early 1960s the Utah Legislature narrowly
voted down various anti-discrimination bills. This caused the NAACP of Utah to
hold a prayer march at the Church Office Building in downtown Salt Lake City,
in 1965. The NAACP believed that the LDS Church should tell Utah Legislators to
pass the Public Accommodations and Fair Employment Acts; thus making it illegal
for a homeowner or realtor to refuse to sell to a person of color, or for an
employer to refuse to hire a person of color based upon their race or
nationality. The Utah Legislature reflected the voters of Utah: 65% of whom
were not active Latter-day Saints, but Gentiles or Jack Mormons.
The NAACP
probably wasn't aware that the Church had to swear to the U.S.
Government in 1896 that it would not speak about nor become involved in
politics in Utah; as condition for the Church remaining a legal
entity in that state, and for the Territory of Utah to finally become a
State. The NAACP of Utah was angry that the Church didn't speak out on these
bills, and believed that it should. The Church publicly remained silent, but it
did republish the 1963 Church statement advocating the civil-rights of black
folks in the Deseret News and the Church News. The Public
Accommodations and Fair Employment Acts were soon passed (Utah Code
13-7: 1-4, 34-17:1-8, 1965).
In 1970 a group of black civil-rights activists
visited Utah to see for themselves the ÁÂnti-Black¡¦discrimination the NAACP
and more radical activists said existed there. One of their number, Lou Smith,
later said:
"If we ever hear someone say anything against the
Mormons again, we will defend them, even though they haven't really changed
their views on us."(Neither White nor Black, p.186)
NAACP and the Boy Scounts
In 1974 the NAACP sued the LDS Church because it
didn't allow black boy scouts in LDS Church-sponsored scouting troops to become
patrol-leaders. They had always been allowed into Mormon scouting troops, but
they couldn't become patrol-leaders. Of course, what the NAACP forgot to
mention was the fact that white Boy Scouts who weren't Members of
the Church were also barred from becoming patrol-leaders in LDS-sponsored Boy
Scout troops. Why did the Church-sponsored Boy Scout Troops require that patrol-leaders also be Aaronic priesthood-leaders? Because that was made an early rule when only Mormon boys joined Church-sponsored Boy Scout Troops! Later, non-mormon boys (including black ones) were allowed in, but the rule about patrol-leaders wasn't changed. In the Mormon, a boy can became a "deacon" at age 12 or 12, a "teacher" at age 14 or 15, and a "priest" at age The Church eventually agreed to promote Boy Scouts to
patrol-leader positions on merit alone: regardless of whether they were LDS or
non-LDS.
In 1995, Tony Martin, an acclaimed African-American
columnist, wrote Black Lies, White Lies, and spoke of Utah and Idaho
(both have large Mormon populations) thusly:
"Interestingly, there are Blacks in those states, and
the 11,576 Black Utahns are among the most influential residents. The crime and
unemployment rates among Utah blacks are very low, and their standard of living
is above average."(Black Lies, White Lies, p.331)
In conclusion, all that can be said is that in
general terms black folks in Utah got the same education as white folks,
could live where they wanted (unless individual home owners objected),
were not asked or forced to sit in the backs of buses, could vote without
restriction, and, usually in half or the majority of cases, could eat, watch a
movie, or rent a room where they wanted. In those cases where individual
home-owners, theater-owners, restaurant-owners, or hotels didn't serve them,
there is no way of knowing if the owners, managers, or desk
clerks of these establishments and businesses were Mormons, Jack Mormons,
Fundamentalists, or Gentiles.
Although the Church "discouraged" social interaction
between white and black, fearing that such social interaction would lead to
forbidden marriages which would cause the Priesthood ban to be extended into
white Mormon lineages, it never did provide Mormons with guidelines on
what was considered appropriate and non-appropriate ÁÔocial interactions¡¦
Thus, each Mormon community, and each Mormon, had to decide for themselves what
social intercourse was allowed and which was discouraged.
Those that claim that most or all of the
discrimination in Utah must be blamed on the LDS Church do so out of ignorance
or spite, and not out of evidence. A review of editorials from
1900 to 1950 in the Mormon newspaper (the Deseret News) shows pro-Black
editorials; while a review of editorials about blacks in the Gentile newspaper
(The Salt Lake Tribune) shows mostly anti-Black editorials for that same
time period.
*Mormons, Gentiles, and the Buffalo Soldiers
A good illustration on the Mormon versus Gentile
attitude towards blacks in Utah can be found with the coming of the 24th
Infantry Regiment in Utah; the Buffalo Soldiers. A Buffalo Soldier was a black
member of the U.S. Army. The American Indians called them Å£uffalo Soldiers¡¦
because their skin and hair was similar to buffalos. In 1896 the 9th Calvary of Buffalo Soldiers was
assigned to Fort Duchesne, and the 24th Infantry of Buffalo Soldiers
to Fort Douglas, both in Utah. Fort Douglas is in Salt Lake City.
On December 21, 1896, President Wilford Woodruff, the
4th President of the Church "Welcomed the members of the 24th
Infantry to Salt Lake City."(The Peoples of Utah, p.132). The Mormon
controlled Salt Lake Herald also welcomed the 24th. Only the
Anti-Mormon Gentile owned and controlled Salt Lake Tribune gave the 24th
a cold welcome; by printing an editorial saying that black soldiers would
molest white women on Salt Lake City street-cars.
African-American historian Ronald G. Coleman writes:
"It should also be noted that the Salt Lake Tribune
was an anti-Mormon newspaper, and the only newspaper in Salt Lake City openly
opposed to stationing black troops at Fort Douglas."(A History of Blacks in
Utah, 1824-1910, p.150)
There are no indications of problems between the
citizens of Salt Lake and the black soldiers of the 24th Infantry
Regiment. All historians agree that the 24th filled the few black
churches in town, and found social outlets via the various black social clubs
and organizations that existed in Salt Lake City at that time. Salt Lake City,
like every other American city at that time, was unofficially "segregated"in
that the black minority of the city had their own clubs, churches, Masonic
halls, and social outlets. Salt Lake City did not have regulations saying that
blacks would sit in the back of streetcars nor did they have separate public
areas in restaurants. Blacks and whites simply did not socialize; other than
daily pleasantries ("Good Morning" while doing business with each other. Some
restaurants and taverns did not allow black customers, but, as we shall see
later, there is no indication this was the fault of the LDS Church. Rather,
this was the standard practice in all the cities of the United States at that
time. African-American (non-Mormon) historian Paul Hill Jr. writes:
"The ironic part of the Salt Lake story is this. In
1896 the mostly Mormon population of Salt Lake City and the black soldiers of
the 24th Infantry got along fine."(The 24th Infantry
in Salt Lake City-1896, p.2 online)
On April 20th, 1898, the 24th
Infantry were sent from Salt Lake City
to Cuba, during the Spanish-American war, and greatly distinguished themselves
in battle by helping to capture a Spanish
stronghold on San Juan Hill, near Santiago, Cuba. After Cuba they were shipped
briefly back to Utah, then on to the Philippines; a former Spanish colony that
became a territory of the United States after the war. After returning from
Cuba the Deseret Evening News wrote a long editorial about them. Here
are excerpts:
"Strange that any American should not know the
inspiring story of how these dark-skinned, white-souled men fought up the
stubborn hill of San Juan; how a colored sergeant of the Twenty-fourth was the
first to plant the flag on the heights of the hill. IT is not so strange that
the private citizen should not know of the everyday heroism of these men in
time of peace; the good order which it is their pride to maintain; their good
citizenship-a thing which we long ago ceased to expect from the regular
soldier, who is usually brawling, turbulent fellow, a victim of the vices of
garrison and camp. These men of the Twenty-fourth behaved so well white they
were among us that we scarcely knew they were here until they were gone and it
was too late to honor them.
Each man seems to be on his personal parole, not only
to keep the peace but to prove by his sobriety, his gentleness, his kindness,
his good breeding, his respect for law, that the tales circulated about his
people are lies; each colored soldier is a committee of one to show to all the
world that the bravest are the gentlest, the most tractable, the most
trustworthy. The real motive of the enlisted Negro is far nobler than the mixed
motives which inspired most regulars [whites]. The colored man enlists because
in the army, more than in any other place in all the [American] Republic, he
approaches equality with white men, the equality of comradeship. In the army one enlisted man is as good as
another and courage is not a matter of complexion.
When the battle is fought and won the black man is as
good as the white.
It chances that the Creator made some cravens
[cowards] white and some heroes black. The colored man thirsts for equality. He
is not callous to the indignities still heaped upon him. He wants to escape
from the accursed thing that follows him and he comes nearer to the republican
idea in the army than anywhere else. This is what has driven colored
schoolteachers, master mechanics, stenographers, farmers, bakers, barbers into
the ranks of the regular army. They are not looking for an easy life but for a
place where they will not be subjected to humiliation and insult.
It is, however, a complaint of the soldiers of the
Twenty-fourth and of all the colored men in the army that their commissioned
officers are not colored men also. There is but one colored commissioned
officer in the army-not counting chaplains-a number ludicrously out of
proportion to the number of black men in the service.
Somehow the idea is abroad in antebellum [pre-civil
war] days that the Negro is a natural coward. It was assumed, since such a
large numbers submitted to be governed by a few, that they must be cravens at
heart. There was never a greater mistake. There is no longer room for argument
about the courage of the Negro soldier in battle.
Once they were allowed to enlist, there was hardly a
battle in which the Negroes were not placed in the very front to make the
advance. It did not take their [white] officers long to learn that these men
were to be relied upon, wholly, that they fought with stubborn bravery and
under perfect discipline.
The regiment had never been under fire until that
sweltering day in Cuba when it swept up the hill of San Juan, past the wavering
[white] Seventy-first of New York. The blacks were the sons, or at best the
grandsons of men and women who were slaves, supposed to cringe at a word; but
the men of African blood put the white ones to the blush [made
them turn red in the face with shame] as they passed steadily up
the steep hill, faltering not, neither headstrong nor faint-hearted nor
trembling of lip, merely faithful to duty and a marvel of discipline.
The Negro always had a splendid physical endowment.
Nature gave him excellent gifts of limb and constitution. The color of skin,
texture of hair, solidity of cranium and perfect teeth were his safeguards
against the malignant climate of Africa.
Suffice it to say that when on that scorching day the
Twenty-fourth charged past the faltering [white] Seventy-first New York
[regiment], it not only vindicated the magnificent manhood of the Negro race
but put to everlasting shame that of the senseless bugbear [monstrous
nonsense] of social prejudice that everywhere stares his race in the face."(Deseret
Evening News, July 8, 1899)
What did the Gentile (non-Mormon) newspaper in
Utah thought of the Twenty-forth Regiment (Buffalo Soldiers)? When they first
arrived The Salt Lake Tribune carried an editorial titled "An Unfortunate
Change". It said that it was unfortunate that "Colored soldiers" would be
riding on street-cars with white women; because the black soldier "Will be sure
to want to assert himself with white women". The Salt Lake Tribune
pleaded with readers to write letters to the Secretary of War so that the black
soldiers would be stationed somewhere else. (Salt Lake Tribune, 20
Sept., 1896).
When the 24th was transferred from Utah to
the Philippines in 1899 the Mormon Church owned and controlled Deseret Press (in
that day Apostles wrote the editorials) couldn't praise the 24th
Infantry enough, and continued a long and glory tribute to them. On the other
hand, the Gentile and Anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune only wrote:
Ũeneral regret is felt in the city over the leaving
of the popular officers of the twenty-forth. They have endeared themselves to
many friends and were favorites in society.¡¦(Salt Lake Tribune, April
1, 1899)
All of the officers of the 24th Infantry
(except a chaplain) were white!
The Mormon political newspaper The Salt Lake Herald
(not owned or controlled by the Church but owned by politically-active Members
of the Church) had a huge headline which read: "Glory and Honor to the Sixteen
Infantry! Welcome to the Twenty-fourth Infantry."(Salt Lake Herald, 10
October 1896).
Both the Deseret News and The Salt Lake
Herald (the two Mormon newspapers) welcomed the 24th when they
came to Salt Lake City, glorified them for their battlefield honor in Cuba, and
wished them well when the 24th was eventually transferred out of
Utah. On the other hand, the anti-Mormon Gentile paper, The Salt Lake Tribune,
was unwelcoming to the 24th (warning
"White women" about them), said
little about their heroic action in the Spanish-American War, and said only
that the "[white] officers would be missed" when the 24th was
transferred out of Utah.
The Salt Lake Tribune was a very anti-Mormon
newspaper, and continued to be until the mid-1950s; when the paper changed
hands and became more professional and neutral towards the Church.
Most active
black Latter-day Saints will testify that racism and discrimination is not
unknown among active Members of the Church in Utah (or elsewhere), but it is rare;
and that discrimination is far more likely to come from a
Gentile or a Jack Mormon or a Fundamentalist (i.e. polygamist) in Utah rather
than from an active, church-going, Latter-day Saint who is in good-fellowship
in the Church.
Please feel free to e-mail Darrick Evenson
This article is not copyrighted.
Return to Main Page