MSSA News

Chronology Pertaining to Blacks and the LDS Priesthood

Richley Crapo, Utah State University

This is not a position piece. It is a simple compilation of historical references that are deemed reliable and pertinent by the authors. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure their reliability and accuracy. Every reasonable effort has been made to make the chronology exhaustive, but there are almost certainly obscure references that have been overlooked.

• 1830 – The Book of Mormon is published. The Book uses a dark-skin motif as a sign of sinfulness by the Lamanites, descendants of Israel through Menasseh whom are considered ancestors of contemporary Native American Indians, “The Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon [the Lamanites]”, cf. 1 Ne. 5:21.
  • The dark skin is equated with a curse which was a result of rebellion, “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them”, cf. 2 Ne. 5:21.
  • The dark skin is explicitly presented as a “mark”, a “curse… because of…transgression” and as a means of separating different cultures, “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction”, cf. Alma 3:6-8.
  • It also states that it was “against [Nephite civil] law” to hold slaves, cf. Alma 27:9 and Mosiah 2:13.
• 1830 – Black Pete joins the Church in Kirtland. There is no evidence pro or con of his having been ordained to the Priesthood.
• Jul 1831 – Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Canaan, “The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience over the boundary of the United States, wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; several of the Lamanites or Indians–representative of Shem; quite a respectable number of negroes–descendants of Ham; and the balance was made up of citizens of the surrounding country…” (History of the Church, 1:190).
• 1832 – Joseph Smith Jr. predicts an insurrection beginning in South Carolina in which slaves would rise up against their masters and great bloodshed would result, cf. D&C 87.
• 1832 – Elijah Abel baptized. There is presently some dispute over his exact ethnicity. Reports vary from his being white, which seems impossible given later actions regarding him, to being light-skinned to being octaroon (1/8 Negro).
• 1833 – W. W. Phelps editorial in the Evening and Morning Star, “Free People of Color” expresses an anti-slavery viewpoint and outlines procedures for the migration of free Blacks to Missouri: “So long as we have no special rule in the church, as to people of color, let prudence guide; and while they as well as we, are in the hands of a merciful God, we say: Shun every appearance of evil.”
• 1834 – According to Zebedee Coltrin (as recalled in 1879, some 45 years later) Joseph Smith in the presence of Coltrin receives a revelation that Blacks are not to be ordained. See 1879 entry for quote.
• 1835 – “Messenger & Advocate” uses “black skin” motif, indicating that it is a mark of sinfulness that can come on members of any race. No mention of a racial ban on the Priesthood related to race. W. W. Phelps writes in January that Ham married a black wife.
• Aug 1835 – In a general declaration concerning governments and civil laws, the following statement is made, “We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude (cf. D&C 134).”
• Sep 1835 – LDS Messenger & Advocate declares that the Gospel’s “order was the same; it produced the same effect among all” and its “order was the same; it produced the same effect among all people, whether they were Seythian, Barbarian, bond or free, Jew or Gentile, Greek or Roman, it mattered not what they were; for in this respect, there was neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, male nor female; but they were all one in Christ Jesus, and the same blessings belonged to all, and the same fruits followed all, and the order was the same, whether it was in Africa, Asia, or Europe”.
• Nov 1835 – Joseph Smith reaffirms his earlier proclamation of an “official” anti-abolitionist position for the Church in To the Elders of the Church. He says that Elders are to avoid going “unto…slaves or servants…unless granted permission by their masters.”
• 1835-39 – Various sections of Doctrine and Covenants present a “universalist” view of the gospel being for all peoples and races and of all peoples being equal in the Gospel (e.g., D&C 1:2; 38:16; 1:10; 10:51; 1:23; 1:34; 112:4.)
• 1836 – Kirtland Temple’s initial rules of conduct were addressed inclusively to “old or young, rich or poor, male or female, black or white, believer or unbeliever”.
• March 1836 – In a discourse on the subjects of slavery and abolition, Smith states that the curse of Ham is “not yet taken off” from the Negroes. “After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, 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). Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. 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.” (History of the Church, 2:438-439).
• Mar 1836 – Elijah Abel ordained an Elder (Eunice Kenny says by Joseph Smith Jr. in My Testimony of the Latter Day Work, ms. in LDS Church Historical Department, although she wrote this four decades after the ordination, and Abel did not cite Joseph Smith as having ordained him in his defense against the later challenge to his status). The certificate of ordination was dated 3 Mar 1836. Newell G. Bringhurst (Saints, Slaves and Blacks, p. 60) notes that certificates were sometimes delayed, so the ordination could have been sooner than this, but Abel is still listed among the recently licensed elders in Jun 1836 (Messenger & Advocate, 2:335).
• Mar 1836 – Elijah Abel given a Patriarchal Blessing by Joseph Smith Sr. No lineage is declared, rather, Abel is proclaimed “an orphan” (this phrase may have been meant literally). Patriarchal blessing states, “Thou shalt be made equal to thy brethren, and thy soul be white in eternity and thy robes glittering.” Sometime in the Kirtland era, Abel is washed and anointed in the Kirtland Temple by Zebedee Coltrin, who would much later remember having never had “such unpleasant feelings.”
• Apr 1836 – Joseph Smith’s front-page editorial in the Messenger and Advocate says “we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters.”
• Jun 1836 – The Messenger and Advocate (page 335) lists the names of several Elders including “Elijah Abel”.
• Dec 1836 – Elijah Abel advances to the rank of Seventy and becomes a “duly licensed minister of the Gospel” for missionary work in Ohio. He also serves missions to New York and Canada. Ordination was performed by Zebedee Coltrin according to certificate. Abel was apparently re-ordained on April 4, 1841.
• 1837 – Apostle Parley P. Pratt expresses his desire to preach the gospel “to all people, kindreds, tongues, and nations without exceptions” (in A Voice of Warning). No indication of differentiation between races with regard to system of preaching the Gospel of the kind that accompanies the Priesthood ban in later times.
• circa 1837 – Joseph Smith begins working on the Pearl of Great Price. (See 1842 for material on contents)
• Jul 1838 – The term “black” is used in a blatantly figurative statement referring to the spiritual condition of apostates, “Therefore, rejoice ye Elders of Israel. Believe not the slangs and foul reports against our beloved brethren, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Sidney Rigdon. They are groundless and as black as the apostate authors who will not protect that little stone that is hewn out of the mountain without hands and who exerts their utmost endeavors to impede the progress of the kingdom which God has set up for the salvation of man in these last days” (A. Ripley, Elders’ Journal, page 39).
• Jun 1839 – Elijah Abel’s activities discussed, but his holding the Priesthood is not documented as being questioned, in a meeting attended by Joseph Smith, Jr.
• 1839 – Elijah Abel made a member of the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum.
• 1839 – Apostle Parley P. Pratt reports that there are fewer than “one dozen free negroes or mulattoes” in the Church. (Late Persecution of the Church of Latter-day Saints, 1840)
• 1839 – Apostle Parley P. Pratt refers to the “mission of the Twelve” to all nations including those on “India’s and Afric’s [sic] sultry plains…where darkness, death, and sorrow reign” (from The Millenium and Other Poems).
• 1839-46 – Nauvoo reported to have 22 Blacks, including free and slave.
• Jun 1841 – Regarding the events surround an arrest, Smith refers to one “Elijah Able”, note the different spelling of the last name. It seems likely that Smith was referring to “Elijah Abel”, but it is not entirely clear that is the case as no direct references to Elijah Abel appear in History of the Church. “News of my arrest having arrived in Nauvoo last night, and being circulate through the city, Hosea Stout, Tarleton Lewis, William A. Hickman, John S. Higbee, Elijah Able, Uriel C. Nickerson, and George W. Clyde started from the Nauvoo landing, in a skiff in order to overtake me and rescue me, if necessary. They had a heavy head wind, but arrived in Quincy at dusk; went up to Benjamin Jones’s house, and found that I had gone to Nauvoo in charge of two officers.” (History of the Church, 4:365)
• Oct 1841 – In a discourse on fault-finding among the brethren, Smith tangentially comments upon the curse Noah laid upon Ham, and states that the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day. “I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine, but doing no harm. Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine and became intoxicated; the Lord did not forsake him in consequence thereof, for he retained all the power of his priesthood, and when he was accused by Canaan, he cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk, and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day” (History of the Church, 4:446).
• Jan 1842 – Smith enters various comments into the history and tangentially remarks upon Negroes being “sons of Cain”, which may or may not be intended literally, “Signed deeds for lots, to Law; transacted a variety of business in the city and office. In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain” (History of the Church, 4:502).
• 1842 – Pearl of Great Price completed (Note: work on the Pearl of Great Price began about 1837). The work makes two references relevant to the issue at hand:
  • Enoch ministers the gospel to surrounding nations but does not go to those of the lineage of Cain, which are identified as being “black”, cf. Moses 7:12 for Enoch not calling on the people of Canaan to repent; Moses 7:22 for the seed of Cain being “black”. Regarding the “seed of Cain were black”, the LDS community has traditionally interpreted Moses 7 as referring to a black skin color rather than “black” in deeds or spirituality.
  • Lineage of Ham via Canaan is cursed by Noah for “seeing the nakedness of his father”. This curse is equated with a black skin and Priesthood ban by inference, (cf. Abr. 1.)
• Mar 1842 – Smith writes the following in a letter on the subject of slavery, “I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?” (History of the Church, 4:544)
• 1843 – Apostles Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt and John Page restrict Elijah Abel’s missionary work to his own people. There is no indication from the documentation of this meeting that any of these three Apostles remark upon there being something wrong with Abel’s holding the Priesthood.
• 1843 – Elijah Abel serves another mission.
• 1843 – Sometime in the Nauvoo era, Elijah Abel participates in at least two baptisms for the dead.
• Jan 1843 – Regarding Negroes in general, Smith states, “At five went to Mr. Sollars’ with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro [sic]. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.
  • “Elder Hyde remarked, ‘Put them on the level, and they will rise above me.’ I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro [sic], I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” (History of the Church, 5:217-218)
  • Some feel that Smith is referring to Elijah Abel above in the reference to “Cincinnati” as Abel took up residence there for a time. There is only circumstantial evidence to support this.
• 1844 or earlier – Walker Lewis, a Black member and barber in Lowell, MA ordained an Elder either by William Smith (a younger brother of Joseph Smith Jr.)–reported by William L. Appleby in a letter to Brigham Young dated June 2, 1847 and in his “Journal History” dated 19 May 1847–both in LDS Archives) or (according to Jane Elizabeth James in a letter dated 7 Feb 1890 to Joseph F. Smith) “Parley P. Pratt ordained Him and Elder” (reported by Wolfinger in A Test of Faith, p. 149).
• Nov 1844 – Apostle Wilford Woodruff visits Lowell, MA and observes that “a Coloured Brother who was an Elder” (presumably Walker Lewis) was present and raised his hand in support of the leaders of the Church. No remark about the existence of a Black Elder being contrary to doctrine or practice.
• 1844 – Joseph Smith Jr. campaigns for the presidency of the United States and espouses an anti-slavery platform aimed at ending all slavery by 1850. His earlier position had been anti-slavery but also anti-abolitionist. Smith states, “Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from deduction of pay from the members of Congress, break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor with other human beings, for an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage….”
• Jun 1844 – Assassination of Joseph Smith Jr.
• Apr 1845 – Article addressing issue of abolition appears using a mix of apparently literal (i.e. “black skin”) and figurative (i.e. “black hearts”) “black” references. No author is cited, but the periodical at that time was edited by John Taylor. “The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom” (Times and Seasons, Vol.6, p.857).
• Oct 1845 – Apostle John Taylor, editor of Times & Seasons, characterized Africa as a “meadow of black flowers [used] to beautify white gardens” and lamented the buying and selling of people (in Nauvoo Neighbor, 29 Oct 1845).
• 1844-45 – Sometime in 1844-45 the Lowell, MA area was visited by Apostles Ezra Taft Benson and Brigham Young, neither of whom apparently mentioned anything amiss about a Black elder’s existence. Brigham Young’s later (1847) statement makes it clear that he was aware of Walker Lewis’s holding the Priesthood.
• 27 Apr 1845 – Orson Hyde refers to Negroes as the cursed lineage of Canaan and says that the curse of servility which they bore was for actions in the Preexistence (“Speech Delivered Before the High Priests Quorum in Nauvoo”, MS in Utah State Historical Society). He also expressed the fear that the curse of Cain would come on him and his posterity if he did not repent his apostasy.
• Oct 1846 – William McCary baptized and ordained by Apostle Orson Hyde (reported by Voree Herald, Oct 1846). See also Fall 1847 entry on McCary.
• Apr 1847 – Apostle Parley P. Pratt writes concerning William McCary, “This black man has got the blood of Ham in him which linege [sic] was cursed as regards to the Priesthood”
• Jun 1847 – William L. Appelby (in charge of eastern states church activity) questions the right of Walker Lewis to hold the Priesthood in a letter to Brigham Young (dated 2 Jun 1847) and inquires whether it is acceptable. The letter arrives at Winter Quarters after Young’s departure, so it is not replied to by Young.
• 26 March 1847 – Brigham Young confronts Black Indian member, William McCary, concerning his erratic behavior and says “its nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent (and) regain what we av [sic] lost–we av [sic] one of the best Elders an African in Lowell [i.e., Walker Lewis].” This positive reference to an African Priesthood holder in the context of “its nothing to do with the blood” appears to indicate that no ban existed as of this date.
• Fall 1847 – Black Indian “prophet”, William McCary seduces a number of Mormon women into his own polygamy rites. McCary was subsequently excommunicated.
• 1847 – Brigham Young declares Blacks ineligible for certain temple ordinances, potentially reactionary to the William McCary affair.
• 1847 – Elijah Abel arrives in Utah, a free man. A carpenter by trade, he works on building the Salt Lake Temple. He and his wife Mary Ann manage the Farnham Hotel. Mary Ann Abel was Negro according to the 1850 Hamilton County Ohio census and 1860 Utah census.
• 1847 – First slaves brought to Utah by LDS members. Slavery is practiced until 1862, when it is abolished by Congress in all territories.
• Feb 1849 – Brigham Young declares “because Cain cut off the lives [sic] of Abel…the Lord cursed Cain’s seed and prohibited them from the Priesthood”. This is currently the earliest known documented statement by a Church President explicitly making a Church policy of a Priesthood ban for Blacks.
• 1850 – Twelve Mormon slave owners possess between 60 and 70 black slaves in Deseret Territory. There is one Apostle, Charles C. Rich, among these slave owners.
• 1852 – An Act in Relation to Service gives legal recognition to black slaveholding in the Territory of Deseret.
• 1852 – First public statement by Brigham Young that Blacks my not hold the Priesthood. Though it is couched in phraseology that implies it was not a new policy, Brigham Young says, “in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true.”
• 1852 – Brigham Young, in a speech regarding slavery before the territorial legislature declares “The seed of Canaan will inevitably carry the curse which was placed upon them until the same authority which placed it there, shall see proper to have it removed”. He also expresses his personal opposition to slavery: “that no property can or should be recognized as existing in slaves” (Brigham Young’s father had been a bond servant to a man who also held slaves and who had mistreated both).
• 1853 – Elijah Abel not allowed by Brigham Young to receive his endowment.
• 1860 – Utah census lists 59 Blacks, 29 of whom were slaves.
• 1862 – Slavery becomes illegal in Utah when Congress abolishes slavery in all territories.
• 1865 – Joseph Smith III, of the RLDS Church, ordains Blacks and asserts that his father never instituted a ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood.
• Oct 1868 – Juvenile Instructor asserts that “Figi [sic] Islanders” and New Zealanders were a problem because they were “greatly mixed…with the Negroes”
• 1879 – Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal, Diary, May 31, 1879, p. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had “masters”. This affidavit says that Smoot, “W. W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them” (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of the CES, The Church and the Negroid People).
  • Coltrin more emphatically generalizes that the ban was applied to all Blacks. The Journal of L. John Nuttal (pages 290-293) reads, “Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met, . . . . Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.”
  • According to Coltrin, “…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.'” Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that “the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood.” President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy “was allowed to remain.”
• 1880 – Elijah Abel again denied the endowment, this time by the Quorum of the Twelve.
• 1883 – Elijah Abel still on record as a Seventy.
• 1884 – Elijah Abel sent on a mission. He returns home and dies in Dec of 1884.
• 1895 – Elijah Abel, now 10 years dead, is again discussed by the Quorum of Twelve. Joseph F. Smith again rebuffs claims that Abel had been dropped from the priesthood. On the contrary, he makes two new, otherwise unverifiable claims: that Abel’s original ordination was done under the direction of Joseph Smith Jr., and that Abel was ordained a High Priest after being a Seventy. At this meeting, George Q. Cannon makes the first known claim–other than by Coltrin–that Joseph Smith himself instituted the ban. Cannon later clarifies that his statement was not firsthand information (Cannon was 17 when Joseph Smith Jr. died), but that he “understood” that to have been the case, citing John Taylor as his source.
• 27 Nov 1900 – Enoch Abel, son of Elijah Abel, ordained an Elder (photocopy of ordination certificate published by Modern Microfilms).
• 1902 – Jane Manning James, a faithful Black member of the Church since the days of Joseph Smith Jr, is given a special temple endowment as a “servant” to Joseph Smith Jr.
• 1908 – Joseph F. Smith, on unspecified grounds, reverses his former position about Elijah Abel’s status and now claims that Joseph Smith himself declared Abel’s ordination “null and void”.
• 5 Jul 1934 – Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained a priest (Modern Microfilms document).
• 29 Sep 1935 – Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained an Elder (Modern Microfilms document).
• 1940 – Apostle J. Ruben Clark, Jr., recommends the appointment of a sub-committee to the council of Twelve to “make some ruling or re-affirm whatever ruling that has been made on this question in the past as to whether or not one drop of negro [sic] blood deprives a man of the right to receive the priesthood” (“Council Meeting” 25 Jan 1940, George Albert Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives).
• 1947 – A Church First Presidency investigation concerning the racial situation among Brazilians finds “the races…badly mixed” because “no color line is drawn among the mass of the people” and that “a great part of the population of Brazil is colored.” In Brazil, a shift occurs to using Patriarchal Blessings as the means for determining whether the Priesthood ban applies.
• 1949 – First Presidency statement issued stating that the Church’s position is a result of revelation, “The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.” No specific revelation is cited.
• circa 1955 – Melanesian “Blacks” (e.g., Fijians) defined by the Church, under David O. McKay, as not under the Priesthood ban. Previously were banned from the Priesthood.
• Jun 1958 – B. R. McConkie publishes Mormon Doctrine. Under heading for “Negroes” he states that Negroes are lineage of Cain through Ham’s wife, they were less valiant in the pre-existence, are banned from the Priesthood, and the gospel message is not to be carried to them. He cites passages from Moses 7 and Abraham 1 as proof texts.
• Jan 1959 – M. G. Romney delivers report authorized by Pres. D. O. McKay on Mormon Doctrine. The report identifies “controversial issues” which “might have been omitted . . . [or] modified” if “the work been authoritatively supervised.” McConkie’s comments concerning the Negro are not cited in the report. Unsold copies of the edition are recalled and destroyed.
• circa 1960-1970 – The Church actively engages in proselyting African Negroes. “In 1960, at the request of the First Presidency, Glen G. Fisher visited…[Nigeria] …as he returned to Utah from his assignment as president of the South African Mission…. by 1961 President McKay concluded that the Church must permit the Nigerians to be baptized and confirmed members of the Church…. Before the end of February 1962, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve decided to open a mission in Nigeria. In March [1962], [Lamar S.] Williams was called…along with his wife, Nyal, to preside over a [mission] district to be established under the umbrella of the West European Mission. Four additional couples were soon selected to assist. On November 21 Williams was set apart by President McKay as the first missionary to the black people of Nigeria and told to establish the Church, conduct missionary work, and organize all the auxiliaries, with local members supervising the auxiliaries. . . . Nigeria had only recently gained independence from British colonial rule, and government officials were suspicious of outsiders. When they learned of the priesthood policy they immediately denied visas to LDS missionaries. . . . Twice Williams returned briefly on temporary visitor’s visas…. [In Dec. 1965 the Biafran War erupted and precluded any missionary efforts.]
• 1962 – “Sometime in 1962 a missionary tract, the “Joseph Smith Story”, found its way into the hands of a black religious leader [in Ghana], Dr. A. F. Mensah, who was converted almost immediately. He soon converted several others, organized a ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’, and began to correspond with LaMar Williams at the Missionary Department of the Church. In 1964 he gave a copy of the Book of Mormon as well as other literature to J. W. B. Johnson who, after reading it and receiving a series of dramatic personal revelations, was also converted and became equally successful in spreading the gospel among fellow Ghanians. Eventually Johnson and his followers formed several ‘Latter-day Saint’ congregations, somewhat independent of Mensah. Mensah, Johnson, and others continued through the 1970s to preach the gospel as they understood it, and to plead with the Church for missionaries and for the official establishment of the Church among them.” (James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints: Correlating the International Church, 1960-1973)
• 1963 – Apostle Hugh B. Brown quoted as saying that the Church was “looking toward the possibility of admitting Negroes” to the Priesthood. (New York Times, 7 Jun 1963)
• 1963 – Joseph Fielding Smith in Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol 4 addresses a question concerning the Church’s position towards Negroes (pages 169-172). He states “the Latter-day Saints… have no animosity towards the Negroe [sic]. Neither have they described him as belonging to an ‘inferior race.’ There are Negroes in the Church who are respected and honored for their integrity and faithful devotion. The door into the Church is open to all.” He also states “if a Negro joins the Church through the waters of baptism and is confirmed by the laying on of hands and then he remains faithful and true to the teachings of the Church and in keeping the commandments the Lord has given, he will come forth in the first resurrection and will enter the celestial kingdom of God.”
• 1963 – Spencer W. Kimball states, “The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men…. I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. . . . The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory…. I know the Lord could change his policy. . . . If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure.” Concerning members who were pressuring Church leaders to make a change regarding blacks and the priesthood Kimball states, “These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority.”
• Sep 1966 – The Second Edition Mormon Doctrine is published, with a number of the items noted in M.G. Romney’s report to the First Presidency edited out. Statements concerning the Negro remain unedited and intact from the 1st Edition.
• 1969 – President Hugh B. Brown proposes that the Church’s policy be reversed and that Blacks be given the Priesthood. This policy was approved by the Quorum of Twelve and the First Presidency with President McKay and Harold B. Lee absent. (President McKay was disabled due to age and President Lee was traveling on Church business.) When President Lee returned, he called for another vote and the measure was defeated this time. (Edwin B. Firmage, editor. The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, “Editor’s Afterward.” Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988.) President Brown wrote about the issue:
  • “A serious problem that has confronted us, especially during the past few decades has been our denying the priesthood to the Negro. Personally, I doubt if we can maintain or sustain ourselves in the position we have adopted but which has no justification in the scriptures, as far as I know. The president says it can only come by revelation. If that is true, then change will come in due course. It seems to me that if we had admitted the Negro to the church as a full member, at the time of Joseph Smith, we would have had more trouble with the government than we then had. Holding ourselves aloof from that until after the Civil war gave us the opportunity to establish the church without that question coming to the front. It was, in other words, a policy, not necessarily a doctrine” (1988. Edwin B. Firmate, editor. The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. P. 129.)
• 1973 – Upon becoming President of the Church, S. W. Kimball was asked about the position of the Church regarding the blacks and the priesthood, he states, “I am not sure that there will be a change, although there could be. We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and this is not my policy or the Church’s policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it, and I know of no change, although we are subject to revelations of the Lord in case he should ever wish to make a change.”
• 1978 – “In 1960 stakes began to be organized in foreign nations, and today the Church is clearly an international organization. With the decision to build a temple in Brazil, the policy regarding the African blacks came into sharp focus because interracial marriage is a common practice there. Under these conditions President Spencer W. Kimball began an exhaustive personal study of the scriptures as well as statements of Church leaders since Joseph Smith, and asked other General Authorities to share their personal feelings relative to the longstanding Church policy. Then he began to inquire of the Lord if the time was not right to extend the priesthood blessings to this restricted people. Recalling this period, President Kimball stated, ‘Day after day, and especially on Saturdays and Sundays when there were no organizations in the temple, I went there when I could be alone.’ The result was a revelation on 1 June 1978:
  • “On Thursday, 1 June 1978, the First Presidency and ten of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave the matter special attention. Then, following the monthly fast meeting of the General Authorities in the Salt Lake Temple on 1 June, President Kimball ‘asked the Twelve not to go home,’ but to stay for a special prayer circle with him. It was on this occasion, at 2:45 p.m., that the Lord confirmed the wishes of the Brethren to rescind the policy that prohibited African blacks from receiving the priesthood.” (Lyndon Cook, Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith)
• 1 Jun 1978 – Revelation is received granting the Priesthood to those of African Negro descent. Concerning the revelation Kimball states, “I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn’t right, if He didn’t want this change to come in the church, that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I’d fight the world against it if that’s what He wanted…. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it. . . . I knew that the time had come.”
• 8 Jun 1978 – Under the direction of President Spencer W. Kimball, the First Presidency announces a revelation extending the Priesthood to “every faithful, worthy man in the Church”. (See Official Declaration-2.)
• Aug 1978 – In a public lecture, B. R. McConkie states,
  • “We have revelations that tell us that the gospel is to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the second coming of the Son of Man. And we have revelations which recite that when the Lord comes he will find those who speak every tongue and are members of every nation and kindred, who will be kings and priests, who will live and reign on earth with him a thousand years. That means, as you know, that people from all nations will have the blessings of the house of the Lord before the Second Coming.
  • “We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
  • “We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.
  • “It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.” (All Are Alike Unto God, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator’s Symposium, August 17-19, 1978)
• Sept 2000 – Alexander Morrison in an Ensign article in Sept 2000, said:
  • “Unfortunately, racism – the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background – remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over. The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands. In common with other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God’s forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin. The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father.
  • “How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.”
• 28 Sep 2002 – Apostle Russell Ballard dedicates a marker to Elijah Abel.

Crapo-R2002-Chronology Pertaining to Blacks and the LDS Priesthood

LDS Doctrinal Rhetoric and the Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

Richley Crapo, Utah State University

c. 1999

Purpose of this Paper

A number of denominations regularly perform same-sex religious marriages. These include the U.S. Branch of Soka Gakkai International Buddhist Association, Reconstructionist Judaism, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Universalists, and even two Restorationist denominations within the Mormon tradition.i The LDS Church headquartered in Salt Lake City is like the majority of denominations in not performing such marriages. However, it differs from most in that in addition to not performing religious same-sex marriages, it is also politically active in opposing secular recognition of same-sex marriages. I wish to address how this political activism intertwines with religious rhetoric concerning marriage, including both what is said and what goes without saying.

Background

In 1990 a court case, Baehr vs Lewin, was filed in Hawaii by three couples in an attempt to get the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Initially, the Honolulu Circuit Court found against the same-sex couples, but in May of that year the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that under the state constitution, which forbids discrimination based on sex, a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate a “compelling state interest” in discriminating against same-sex couples. Having made this determination, the Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the case to the circuit court with the mandate to reverse its decision unless such a compelling state interest was found to exist. The legislative Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law established to determine whether a compelling state interest existed in not recognizing same-sex marriages determined that no such interest existed. This finding made it inevitable that the Honolulu Circuit Court would change its original decision and find in favor of the couples involved in the case.

The hearing of the arguments concerning the issue of compelling state interest was finally scheduled to begin in the Honolulu Circuit Court on September 25, 1995. But seven months before that date, the LDS Church in Hawaii sued the circuit court (in February) to be admitted as “co-defendants” with the state. As explained in a press release dated February 23, 1995, by the Hawaii Public Affairs Council of the LDS Church, the Church’s position was based on the claim that it and its members would be adversely affected if its interests were not represented in the case. The Church argued that if same-sex marriages were granted legal recognition, then its ministers might be legally required to perform such marriages despite the fact that they are contrary to the Church’s religious values. It further explained that “Our motion for intervention is not to oppose civil rights for anyone, but to protect families and children, as well as society in general, by opposing a proposal to extend the legal privileges of marriage beyond the kind of relationship that justifies it”. In late March, a Circuit Court judge rejected the LDS request, noting that the argument of being forced to perform marriages that are religiously repugnant to the church is legal nonsense, since no minister is legally required to perform any marriage. Nevertheless, the LDS Church in Hawaii appealed this decision to the Hawaii Supreme Court, where the appeal was also not favorably heard. The final step in the court process is for the Hawaii Supreme Court to hear arguments and render a final decision, one that is likely to be consistent with its previously expressed views on the unconstitutionality of refusing to grant married status to same-sex couples.

LDS Rhetoric Concerning Legal Marriage

Although most denominations are not totally sanguine about same-sex relationships, the concept of same-sex marriages is particularly problematic for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since the very core of its organizational and theological emphasis is the sanctity of the family created by heterosexual marriage. The sanctification of heterosexual marriage is more than a mere political slogan for the LDS religion, which celebrates as one of its most sacred rituals the ordinance of heterosexual temple marriages, long described as necessary for salvation in the highest degree of glory in the next life. LDS theology views such temple-blessed unions as “eternal marriages” which will endure beyond death. Among the small number of special ordinances practiced in LDS Temples is the “sealing” of children to their parents to ensure that the family organization is preserved throughout eternity. Worldwide, the LDS church reserves one evening a week in which no regular church meetings are scheduled so that each family may hold its own “Family Home Evening”. So central is the family in church thought that, even Apostles of the church have expressed the idealized view that the central function of the church itself is simply to serve as an aid to the family, the true organizational unit of the church. Thus, heterosexual marriage is not simply one of a number of sacraments within the LDS church, but is better seen as the culminating ordinance for the typical member. This makes the concept of same-sex marriage uniquely problematic in LDS discourse.

The LDS press release of February 23, 1995, is interesting both in the terms that are used to discuss the legal and religious issues concerning marriage and in the terms that are avoided in that discussion. In taking a position against state recognition of same-sex marriage, the press release contrasts what it calls “traditional marriage” with “homosexual and lesbian marriage”. The phrase “traditional marriage” or some synonym is used seven times in fewer than six hundred words of text. The phrase “homosexual marriage” or an equivalent is used another seven times. This contrast set is interesting because of the semantic shift which it involves. The document does not contrast “traditional” with “nontraditional” nor does it contrast “homosexual and lesbian” with “heterosexual” but rather shifts from one semantic set to the other. Notably, in contrast with the seven occurrences of “homosexual” and an equal number of occurrences of “lesbian”, the term “heterosexual” is never called upon to discuss marriages involving males and females. The sexuality of same-sex unions is thus highlighted, while the sexuality of so-called “traditional marriages” is avoided.

The use of an unbalanced contrast set in statements such as the 1995 press release certainly imparts a connotative spin to the argument, but I believe that more than mere polemics is involved. It is the absence of the term “heterosexual” that I wish to focus on. It is a term that goes without saying not just in public political statements, but in LDS rhetoric concerning marriage in general. Marriage is, in other words, assumed to be heterosexual. The possibility of same-sex marriages is an immediate challenge to this assumption. It’s existence as a public category would demand that the unspoken be addressed. I will argue that doing so is problematic for the LDS church in very practical ways.

The Ambiguity of Marriage

Marriage in western societies is an ambiguous concept. It may, for instance, be thought of in personal terms as a committed sexual relationship, in political terms as a legal institution, and in religious terms as a sacrament. That which is defined from any one of these perspectives is something quite different from the meaning embodied in each of the other perspectives. Yet this ambiguity is commonly ignored as if the word “marriage” meant the same thing whenever uttered. This blindness to ambiguity makes it possible to use religious rhetoric about sacramental marriage as if it were relevant to the political issues of the legal institution called by the same name.

Failure to distinguish between “marriage” as a religious institution and “marriage” a defined set of secular legal rights and responsibilities is incongruous on its face, since it legitimizes secular bureaucratic control over an institution thought to have been established by God with no inquiry concerning the interesting question of how human governments might have acquired such authority regarding a divine institution. Mormons of a century ago came down unambiguously in opposition to the authority of government to impose a secular definition of marriage or to limit their right to establish marriages according to their own religious conceptualization of the institution. For instance, Shoshone couples whose “marriages” had involved no religious or secular ceremony were freely admitted to membership in the church without any requirement of instituting a marriage by either a legal or religious ceremony. They were not defined as “living in sin” for the lack of either formal mechanism for defining themselves as married. Similarly, Mormon polygynous marriages did not involve a civil ceremony. Thus, a variety of ways existed for creating relationships that were considered valid bases for being said to be “married”. Their common denominator was probably nothing more than the expression of commitment to the relationship, because Mormons did distinguish in political speeches about polygamy between the legitimate sexuality of these relationships and the “fornication” or “adultery” in the uncommitted sexual liaisons of their adversaries.ii Today, the LDS church defines “chastity” in a way that incorporates the secular definition as limiting sex to a partner with whom one is “legally and lawfully” wedded. This shift in definitions deposed personal commitment as the defining essential of marriage, creating a major contrast between “married couples” and couples who, though committed, were merely “fornicators” and thereby raised the status of civil marriage to a position coequal with that of religious ceremony as the public determinants of marriage.

The contemporary ambiguous nature of the concept of marriage leaves us blind to this unasked and unanswered theological question. In LDS circles it literally “goes without saying” that secular governments have somehow been authorized by God to determine when sex is or is not sin, a sentiment that would not have been shared by LDS polygynists of the last century.

This issue can be brought into focus in several ways. From a religious perspective an LDS person might note that fornication and adultery are sins because God forbade them and that marriage, which legitimizes sex in His eyes, was instituted by God. Furthermore, marriage is a sacrament, or, in LDS terminology, a Priesthood ordinance, since the effectiveness of a sealing for eternity is contingent upon its being performed by an authorized Priesthood bearer. The question that generally remains unput in LDS circles is “Under what circumstances may sex occur outside a temple marriage and not constitute fornication or adultery?” The “LDS common sense” response to this uncommon question is, of course, when the couple is legally married in the eyes of the government of their society. But this reply seems sufficient only because it relies on an implicit LDS assumption that God recognizes the validity of secular marriage, an assumption that is both naive concerning the cultural diversity of marriage norms throughout the world and culture-bound as well. The latter is well illustrated by a case in point, the Protestant applicant for baptism into the LDS community, who at his baptismal interview inquired whether he was “living in sin”, since he and his wife of twenty-years had been married only in a non-LDS ceremony.iii To one not immersed in the “common sense” of the LDS subculture, the question was a natural one. The LDS interviewer’s response, however, was surprise at the question itself and a friendly reassurance that such was not the case.

But what is the underpinning of this LDS “common sense” view that secular marriage is efficacious in determining whether sex is sinful or acceptable to God? The case of same-sex marriage forces a confrontation with this question in a stronger way than does any other form of marriage. If a state such as Hawaii actually comes to recognize same-sex unions as legal marriages, then the usual reliance on unquestioned “common sense” fails in a religion such as Mormonism that rejects same-sex unions as inherently unchaste. It becomes logically mandatory to make a theological distinction between secular marriages performed by government that shift a cohabiting couple’s sexual behavior from the category of “fornication” to that of “chaste sex” and governmental marriages that have no such efficacy. At the very least, theological discourse must change, even if the question is not addressed head on. For instance, in a society in which same-sex and other-sex marriage are legally indistinguishable, the ambiguity of the phrase “eternal marriage” in a missionary dialogue would miscommunicate in a way which would no longer be practical. To communicate LDS theology appropriately it would be necessary to make explicit that which can remain implicit in a heterosexist culture; to communicate what is really meant, the missionary dialogue would have to speak explicitly of “eternal heterosexual marriage”. This explicitness is, of course, quite out of step with our still rather Victorian LDS sensibilities within which sex is to be euphemized if spoken of at all.

References

iThe Restoration Church of Jesus Christ and The Restoration Fellowship of Jesus Christ.

iiCowley, Matthias F. 1909. Wilford Woodruff. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft (1964 edition). Pp. 403-404.

iiiPersonal recollection of the event.

Crapo-R1999-LDS Doctrinal Rhetoric and the Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

Ministering Angels and Eunuchs for Christ: Being Mormon in the Sexual Margins

Richley H. Crapo, Utah State University

c. 1998

Introduction: Personal and Social Identities

Human identity has both personal and social components. Personally, our sense of self is influenced by our subjective experience of physiological and psychological facts such as our moods, our sexual drive, and the kinds of sexual attractions that we feel. We may simply respond to these inner processes or only experience them intuitively as we act on them, or we may identify them consciously in statements such as “I am attracted to women”, “I am spiritual”, or “I am energetic and enjoy physical activity”. Such private, subjective experiences as these may influence our behavior and they may also influence our sense of self when they become objects of self-conscious reflection that can be put into words such as these.

Although the process of consciously identifying aspects of our inner selves may be, in part, based on introspection, it is typically influenced very heavily by the dialogs about identity that we hear around us in society. Thus, despite the fact that subjectively experienced facts may contribute to our personal identities, our identities are also greatly shaped by our dialogs with others and by the cultural categories and ideas about the kinds of personal “selves” that we learn by participating in those dialogs.

Each society has a variety of preexisting labels and ideas about a variety of personal identities that we may adopt when we communicate about ourselves to others. Identifying ourselves as “gay”, “straight”, “moody”, “exuberant”, or “depressed” are just five out of many such socially shared labels that may become part of our personal sense of who we are.

Other parts of our personal identities are based on the kinds of social relationships we regularly participate in. By participating in the various social roles that society makes available to us, we learn to identify ourselves in terms of these social identities when we call ourselves by the words that identify these social identities: “father”, “wife”, “Mormon”, “businessman”, “golfer”, or “lesbian” to name just six. In adopting such labels we contrast ourselves with others, demarcating the boundaries between them and ourselves: I can be a “heterosexual” as opposed to a “homosexual”, a “Mormon” instead of a “Gentile”, or a “woman” rather than a “man”. Each of our many social identities marks off part of the territory that we occupy in society at large. By becoming aware of such contrasts we gain a more conscious conceptualization of exactly who we are and where we fit in the broader landscape of society at large.

These many identities, both personal and social, are organized into a hierarchy. Some are more important, more central to our sense of self and our outlook than are others. I may view myself first and foremost as a Mormon and secondarily as one who makes his living as an academic, or I might perceive myself as primarily a social scientist who also happens to be a Mormon. One way or another, some of our identities influence our outlook on life, our understanding of things, and our values more than do others.

Society also has widely shared social values about how we should rank our different identities. Unfortunately, these socially shared values may differ from the actual, subjective rankings that inform our personal sense of who we are. When this is so, we may experience both stigma from others and subjective distress about our failure to meet the expectations of others. For instance, I may perceive myself most intensely in terms of how I make my living and be so involved in its roles that, perhaps without even consciously choosing it, my other roles–as husband or father–may come in a distant second. But if I say that being an anthropologist is more important to me than being a father, I can surely expect to hear disapproval from my wife, my children, and probably even from many fellow anthropologists as well, because this ranking is out of step with widely held social values about the importance of the family and how its roles should be prioritized over our economic identities. Stigmatizing terms such as “workaholic” testify to such social conventions, while “dedicated parent” is always a compliment.

We establish our social identities by becoming members of various social groups and participating in their dialogs about the social identities that bind their members together. In so doing, we learn to label ourselves in terms of these social identities: “I am a gay activist”, “I am a Republican”, “I’m a farmer”, or “I am an agnostic”.

Our full selves consist of many identities, including some that are personal and subjective and others that we share with others by participating in the groups that foster those social identities. When one of our many social identities is generally held by society at large to be incompatible with other social identities or with personal identities that we privately perceive ourselves to have, and especially when those incompatibilities involve identities that are central to our sense of who we really are, then the distress of cognitive dissonance is inevitable. In this paper, I will explore some of the ways that individuals attempt to cope with the dissonance that arises from being both “LDS” and “gay”.

The Identity Politics of Being Both Mormon and Same-Sex Attracted

As Geertz (1973, P. 5) so aptly noted, we symbolling animals are “suspended in webs of significance”. We fix our location within the human landscape by defining our identities with boundaries that contrast them with the alternative identities of others. Each of us is a combination of such identity markers: “I am a Mormon”, “I am an anthropologist”, “I am White”, and “I am a lesbian” are but four of the many component parts of personal identity. Sometimes these identities may form a comfortable, coherent whole. At other times, they may be in conflict. Such internal dissonance may work itself out in various ways, but the process is particularly problematic when one’s allegiance to an external institution such as a religious denomination makes the institution’s definitions of appropriate identities a source of personal intrapsychic dissonance.

In October of 1995, Elder Dallin Oaks fired a salvo in the war of words about sexual orientation. Hailed by liberal Mormons as a blow against intolerance and homophobia because it acknowledged the possible role of biology in sexual orientation and decried discrimination against “those with homosexual problems”, Elder Oaks’ article nevertheless reinforced the LDS church’s discrimination between members whose sexual drives may be channeled into heterosexually married relationships and those whose spontaneous desires may never be acted on as a source of fulfillment and love.

As do all definitions, Elder Oaks’ specifying of homosexuality as a form of orientation and behavior rather than a characteristic of persons excludes as well as it includes. In Oaks’ terminology, a homosexual orientation may not legitimately define one’s identity within the Mormon context. One may be “a Mormon with a homosexual orientation” but not “a homosexual Mormon”. Though it is true that heterosexual identity is similarly expected to be subordinated to religious values within Mormonism, heterosexuality need not be totally suppressed to maintain an acceptable religious identity. Mormonism is institutionally compatible with heterosexual dating, and the conflicts that the dating couple may experience between sexual desire and religious restraints on sexual behavior is mitigated by the possibility of heterosexual marriage within which sexual desire may eventually find fulfillment. For the homosexually-oriented member, the prospect of nonfulfillment of sexual desire must be life-long.

But sexuality plays a powerful role in the human self-concept and for Mormons whose orientation is to their own sex, placing religious identity in a more central position within self-concept is not easily done. Both religion and sexuality can be central to one’s self-concept. And when the two are at odds, the conflict allows no easy resolution. Other than complete rejection of those religious values, the conflict remains unresolved no matter how one prioritizes religion versus sexual orientation. As one gay Mormon informant explained, “The church teaches us that we are eternal beings, and I believe that. Eternal means having no beginning . . . and having no end. If we are eternal than it seems to me that our personalities and identities are eternal as well. Being gay is as much a part of my personality and who I am as any other dimension. Not only do I think I was gay in the spirit world before I came to this one, but I also believe I will be gay in the spirit world after I leave this one.” Such a view is unsurprising. After all, for most post-adolescents, sexuality and its role in relationships with others are central elements of self-image. As Calderone (1972:9) noted nearly thirty years ago, “Sexuality is the end result of sexualization which establishes the whole human being as male or female, including all . . . sex-related thoughts, fantasies, information, self-images, feelings, behavior, and experiences.” The place of sexuality in self-concept must be understood not as a self-contained intrapsychic fact, but as an element of human relationships. As Atwood and Williams (1983:56) put it: “We define ourselves in part not in reference to stereotyped roles, but in the positive or negative feelings about our biological sexuality and the expression of it to others. . . From birth this sexuality becomes an integral part of one’s capacity for tenderness, warmth, love, and intimate relationships.”

It is not surprising then that, whatever their stance on the Oaks’ statement about homosexuality and Mormonism–whether favorable or critical–sexuality is necessarily problematic for lesbian- or gay-oriented persons for whom the LDS subculture is also an important part of personal or social identity. Nowhere is the relationship between personal identity and social definitions more clearly exemplified than it is in the ways in which sexual orientation is addressed in the various discourses concerning homosexuality among persons of LDS background who are affectionally oriented towards others of their own sex.

Sexual Identity, Religious Identity and Cognitive Dissonance

The potential for dissonance between the demands of a religion and one’s personal identity is not unique to the role of sexuality in personal identity. David Knowlton’s (1992) essay on the oxymoronic dilemma of the “Mormon anthropologist” prophetically illustrated how certain professional identities may be incompatible with one’s religious tradition. But while most people are not social scientists, most do experience themselves as sexual beings and sexuality is both a powerful and important influence on self-concept and self-worth.

Religion is not an important element of personal or social identity for many people. To those for whom religion is an important part of personal or social identity, the dissonance that can exist between religious and sexual identities is a particularly strong example of the difficulties inherent in conflict between religious values and other elements of personal and social identities. As one excommunicated gay Mormon claimed, “Neither [members nor nonmembers understand] that being a Mormon is just as much a part of who I am as is being gay. It is not just the Gospel. It isn’t just the Mormon doctrine and principles. It’s part of the fabric which is made up of my memories–both happy and not so happy. It influences how I look upon others, how I perceive the world around me. It is one hell of a big chunk of my young life. How could I just throw it all away? I can’t! And I do not want to either.” Or as another put the same idea, “This is probably one of the most commonly asked questions I get, mostly from the LDS: ‘How can you be Mormon, if you’re gay?’ For some reason church members just do not ‘get’ that being Mormon goes beyond which church roster one’s name appears on.” Or, as another put it, “Being a Mormon is no more voluntary than being a man, or being gay.”

Coping Options

Kristin Severson (1998) expressed the conflict between these two competing identities for lesbian Mormons in this way:

“Identifying as both lesbian and Mormon can create a moral conflict which brings into question one’s whole conception of moral authority. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . works from a ‘rational’ moral authority with a ‘spiritual’ source. The leaders of the LDS Church themselves are esteemed as the moral authorities within Mormonism, chosen by God to lead.

These leaders consistently claim that homosexuality is ‘immoral,’ that is detracting from the spiritual progress of humanity. The Mormon community, as a body, rejects its members who choose to pursue sexual relations with members of their own sex. In order to process this moral conflict, lesbian Mormons may choose to continue their belief in a moral authority which rejects them, and may accept their lesbian desires as ‘sinful.’ They may alter their belief in this moral authority slightly, claiming Church authority is wrong regarding only the particular issue of homosexuality. Or lesbian Mormons might experience this moral conflict as a gateway through which they begin to address their entire spiritual belief system and their concept of moral authority” (p. 10).

In his study of LDS gays, Phillips (1993) noted that his sample included both persons who “choose to live celibate lives, attempt to change their sexual orientation, or marry heterosexually in order to maintain favor with the Mormon church” (p. vi) and those who “strive to reform the Mormon church and seek to have gay relationships sanctioned within Mormonism” (p. vi). What these attempts at reconciling sexual identity with religious preference have in common is that none is able to overcome the marginalizing effects of dissonance between a sexual identity and a religious system that marginalizes it.

Isolation and Loneliness

Phillips noted that members of his sample who abstained from sex in order to remain active in the church were generally admonished “to divulge their orientation to other church members on a ‘need to know’ basis. Depending on the bishop, this may even include members of the immediate family” (p. 94). They were also strongly advised to drop further contact with other gay people. The effect, according to Phillips, “. . . for most celibate gay Mormons is that they live solitary, lonely lives with few social outings” (p. 94) either within their religious community or outside it.

Though the LDS church does not formally encourage any member to relate to others socially in a way that explicitly highlights their sexual identity, the central role of the (heterosexually-based) family and of eternal (heterosexual) marriage covenants does enable heterosexually-attracted members to informally experience their sexual-attraction as very compatible with their social role and with their dialog with other members. This contrasts in an important way with the experience of homosexually-oriented members. The LDS church has no formal or informal means of providing fellowship to same-sex-oriented members in a way that permits them to integrate their experience of same-sex attraction with their social identities as members of a network of LDS friends at the ward level. The heterosexual presumption of LDS discourse leaves such members inevitably feeling isolated within the Church, unable either to fully identify with it’s heterosexually-oriented message or to readily communicate that sense of isolation and lack of meaningful fellowship to other members, since Mormons generally do not speak of sexual issues very directly within a Church context.

Phillips illustrates the role of loneliness by citing cases such as the informant who did volunteer work at a homeless shelter not because he cared about the work, but, as he put it, “because it gives me someone to talk to. They’re about the only ones who don’t judge me”. He also cites the gay member who drove around the streets at night looking for hitchhikers, just to have someone to talk to; and another who described the local talk radio station as his “best friend.”

Personal Adaptation of Religious Views

Being isolated within the church means that being a so-called “active member” does not necessarily imply commitment to the institution despite belief in the doctrines. One gay member pointed out, “I believe that everybody has a different understanding of Mormonism. I do have a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, but I also cannot deny the fact that I am gay. In my reconciliation, I have learned to make a separation between the Church and the gospel. I still sustain the brethren of the Church as apostles, prophets, seers and revelators. But I don’t believe that every whim that comes out of their mouths should be exercised into every individual’s personal life. . . My personal experiences have revealed to me that the Brethren are misguided on the issue of homosexuality. And perhaps other things too. The Lord has personally affirmed to me that these teachings are not right for ME. In a most convincing way, He has told me to be true to myself. In that regards, I search for a companion to share the joys of life with.” Interestingly, this adaptation subverts the anti-homosexuality values of the institution by affirming one of its own doctrines, the right of individuals to personal revelation in matters that concern their personal lives, thereby legitimating the individuals right to carve out a personal niche within an institution that does not make room for his marginal sexual identity. Yet, this resolution of gay identity with Mormon religious identity is not entirely unproblematic. The individual’s religious adaptation is only secure so long as his sexual desire remains unfulfilled. This results in a tendency to become inactive when he is involved in a loving same-sex relationship. “The reality,” he says, “is that there is really NO place for ME in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am searching for what I believe can be my ‘eternal companion.’ To be completely accepted in the Church, I must end that search. I won’t do that….”

Anger

The lack of a meaningful support network in which identity issues can be dealt with takes its toll and inevitably leads to strong feelings and innovative personal ways of reconciling orientation, spirituality, and church. As one informant told me, “I am . . . angry at and deeply disturbed by the Church for the untold suffering and destruction it has precipitated in the lives of so many of my gay brothers and sisters. I don’t apologize for those feelings. I believe in my heart that the Church is deeply mistaken concerning its attitude and policies toward homosexuality. I still have a testimony of the gospel and resent having to attempt to find another outlet for my spiritual feelings.” Even the least volatile of reconciliations of a gay identity with church membership entails at least a conscious dissonance with respect to the church, a dissonance that plays itself out either in self-deprecation or cynicism towards church leaders: The first is illustrated by the words of one member who reported, “I served for several years in high level church and stake callings,” said one gay member. “I was twice considered the man most likely to be called as the next bishop. I was never called, and I was convinced it was because the Lord knew that I was gay, even though no one else in the world did.” Or, the fault may be displaced onto the church, as when another member more wryly observed, “I was working [as an employee] in the First Presidency’s Office, Section Leader of Mormon Youth Chorus, writing RS lessons for the General Church Writing Committee, high council member, temple sealer at 35 and even Nursery Leader . . . all the while being complimented for my spirituality, devotion, etc. and knowing full well in my heart my true sexual identity. While I do not doubt the ‘goodness’ or ‘righteous intentions’ of any of us, nor any other qualifications which make us capable of serving, I find it somewhat amusing that all these calls were made after fasting, prayer and deliberation to find the most ideal candidate! I even have more personal examples of direct dealings with the brethren who were ‘impressed’ with my ‘deep spirituality’–I often wondered how impressed they would have been if they knew a ‘deeply spiritual’ man could also be ‘deeply’ gay!”

The particular difficulty of conforming to the church’s behavioral demands despite same-sex desire is poignantly expressed by one gay ex-Mormon: “I used to [actively participate in the church] for 22 years and decided that ‘no one can serve two masters…’ The energy to maintain this stance was too much for me to handle. I had been celibate for a period of six years and had been through all kinds of reparative therapy and psychotherapy plus I am a psychotherapist myself. I found that I would move into fear at the thought of being found out and I would often go through guilt trips and depression because of my so-called unrighteous thoughts and desires to love and be loved by another man. . . I made the conscious choice to leave this time last year because the Spirit told me it is time to go.”

Compartmentalization

The “at-odds-ness” between the gay identity and feeling full fellowship is clearly demonstrated by those who are assertive about their right to a sexually fulfilling life yet still maintain their activity within the church. Answering the question of how he manages both, one gay member explained, “The way I do it is to be firmly convinced the Church is wrong on this point, and I know that from personal revelation. Having served in bishoprics, mission, etc., I know that the church is run by well-meaning and sincere amateurs who do their best but are human. That also helps. I attend church regularly in my small inner-city branch . . . . The branch president ‘knows’ [that I am sexually active] but I have stood firm that I will participate as much as I am allowed without answering questions about my personal sex life. I know I can’t get into the temple without answering such questions, so I don’t ask for a recommend. The result, sadly, is that I’m there every week with about 40 other people and I have yet been asked to say a prayer, speak, teach, or pass the sacrament. Still, I have the gospel, the scriptures, and my prayers. Some day it may change. Maybe not. I am content either way in God’s love and the warmth of his arms around me.”

Disengagement

More often, an assertive validation of one’s sexual identity is found to be more compatible with the marginal role of a “disengaged” Mormon. In this route, fellowship is found in alternative social settings, sometimes by simply “coming out” and going it alone, but other times by shifting to a “gay-friendly” denomination (such as the Metropolitan Community Church or the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ) or by finding a support network among other sexually active gays who still also identify with their Mormon religious or cultural heritage. The first route, “coming out” on one’s own appears to be most associated with embittered feelings towards one’s Mormon past. A second-hand account of one such case is illustrative: “I’ve known one gay man who was a bishop, married, successful, very handsome. He has expressed to me his regret for excommunicating a gay man from his ward when he was trying to be straight. Since coming out he has become so totally intolerant of anyone who is Mormon, and anyone who says that not all Mormons are that way.”

Organizations such as Affirmation and internet lists such as Q-Saints provide a setting in which persons of Mormon background can find their sexuality validated. These groups draw heavily on mainstream American gay-supportive discourse as a basis for discussing their sexuality and the conflicts it has presented for them within the church. Wasatch Affirmation exemplifies this approach. Its mission statement says it “. . . aims to provide a safe, inclusive space for gay men and lesbians from Mormon backgrounds who live along the Wasatch front. We affirm that a gay/lesbian lifestyle can be a positive one and that homosexuality is not incompatible with spirituality. At the same time, we are a diverse group who embrace a variety of lifestyles and hold a variety of attitudes towards spirituality, religion, morality and politics. We are united chiefly by our desire to interact with others who share our dual background–Mormon and gay/lesbian–and therefore share the unique struggles and blessings which that duality engenders.”

Religious Identity Center Stage: Heterosexual Temple Marriage

Other gay members seek to fully implement the heterosexist ideals of the church into their own lives, through sexual abstinence, service within the church, and heterosexual temple marriage. Yet, even this route of full conformity to the outward trappings of Mormonism is recognized as one that involves compromising one’s psychological identity: “The woman that I will marry will not fulfill my sexual desires entirely, but will feed me what I need from her. Together we will strive to be a ‘whole’. And it will be enough to help me endure to the end.” That such ideals face conflicts with practical reality is stated more directly by another: “I am 25, LDS with a rock solid testimony and planning on a life of celibacy to honor my Temple covenants. But to be realistic being alone is very hard if not impossible, but it is worth a try, and it is what I feel Heavenly Father wants me to do.”

Clearly, this alternative is not an easy one for persons whose spontaneous desire is toward their own sex. Nor is it always successful. As one man stated, “I thought when I was younger that I was bisexual, that I could CHOOSE the only option the church gave me of heterosexual monogamy. Maybe I just wanted to believe it. I certainly believed that when I went to the temple before my mission, and I believed it when I married. But in the intimacy of a shared life, I couldn’t sustain it. I’m still married, I’m still at home and am trying to do so until June when our younger daughter graduates. This last year brought me disfellowshipment, passage through depression, thoughts of suicide, therapy, and a new sense of self and peace on the inside. I’m going to be alright. And both God and the Spirit never left me. I am looking for a new spiritual home.”

Conclusion

Despite its heterosexist theology and despite its self-portrayal as a highly unified religious subculture, Mormonism is not one thing for all members, and the gay, lesbian, and bisexual margins which it, in fact, includes are themselves quite diverse. The diverse adaptations that arise from the conflicts between official Mormon theology and same-sex desire is particularly dramatic and serves well as a type-case for the general issue of of dissonance between personal and social identities.

References

Atwood, Mary Ellen, and Jean Williams. (1983). “Human Sexuality: An Important Aspect of Self-Image”. In Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Calderone, Mary. (1972). “It’s Society That Is Changing Sexuality.” The Center Magazine Vol. V., No. 4, pp. 58-68.

Geertz, Clifford. (1973). “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”, Daedalus, Vol 101, Pp. 1-37.

Knowlton, David. (1992). “No One Can Serve Two Masters: Or Native Anthropologist as Oxymoron”, International Journal of Moral and Social Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring), Pp. 72-88.

Oaks, Dallin. (1995). “Same-Gender Attraction,” The Ensign (October), Pp. 7-14.

Phillips, Richard D. (1993). Prophets and Preference: Constructing and Maintaining a Homosexual Identity in the Mormon Church. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Sociology, Utah State University.

Severson, Kristen. (1998). “Lesbian Mormons and the Morality of Conflicting Identities,” Off Our Backs, (January), pp. 10-12.

Crapo-R1998-Ministering Angels and Eunuchs for Christ-Being Mormon in the Sexual Margins

Chronology Of Mormon / LDS Involvement In Same-Sex Marriage Politics

Richley H. Crapo, Utah State University

• 1988 – The Church contracts the Hawaii marketing agency, Hill and Knowlton, to monitor and promote the Church’s stance on gay issues in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. One function of working through a nonmainland marketing agency was that the name of the Church was separated from the legislative efforts that the firm undertook.
• Dec 1990 – Three same-sex couples apply for marriage licenses at the Hawaii State Department of Health and are refused. They file suit in a case now known as Baehr v. Miike (originally Baehr v. Lewin).. The Hawaii marriage law does not specify anything about the sex of the parties, because the Hawaii constitution forbids any laws that discriminate by sex. They argue that since the refusal to issue a license was because they are not couples of two sexes, this refusal is sex discrimination under the law. Nota bene: their suit does NOT raise any issue concerning discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Indeed, their sexual orientation is NOT indicated in their suit. So sexual orientation is not technically an issue in the case.
• Sep 1991 – Circuit court Judge Kevin Klein dismisses the case, and the couples appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
• Oct 1992 – The Baehr case is heard before the Hawaii Supreme Court.
• 5 May 1993 – The Hawaii Supreme Court rules that the state’s refusal to issue marriage licenses constitutes sex discrimination under Hawaii law. As such, the discrimination may only be practiced if the state can demonstrate a “compelling public interest” in denying marriage to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court returns the case to the circuit court to issue a new decision based on whether such a compelling interest exists.
• 5 May 1993 – Apostle Boyd K. Packer gives an address at a meeting of the All-Church Coordinating Council and refers to homosexuality as one of the three major social problems that represent a danger to members.
• 1993 – present – Following this court decision, the Hawaii legislature becomes embroiled in competing measures, including a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions. Generally, none of the proposed actions is successful because the Senate and House are unable to agree on whose version should be accepted. Typically, the House versions are the more conservative.
• 14 Feb 1994 – The First Presidency issues a statement that reads, in part, “We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.”
• ca Feb 1995 – Brigham Young University President and later Regional Representative Rex E. Lee allowed by LDS headquarters to serve as a legal counsel to aid the state of Colorado in it’s defense of its recently passed constitutional amendment forbidding laws which grant civil rights protections based on sexual orientation.
• 23 Feb 1995 – The Hawaii Public Affairs Council issues a news release under LDS Church letterhead. In it church spokesperson Ms. Napua Baker announced that the Church had decided to petition the court to be admitted as “codefendants” with the state in the Baehr v. Lewin case in order to “protect freedom of religion to solemnize marriages between a man and a woman under Hawaiian law.” LDS Regional Representative Donald Hallstrom reinforced the importance of this move by the church, saying “There are times when certain moral issues become so compelling that the churches have a duty to make their feelings known.”
• Feb/Mar 1995 – In the petition which was filed soon after the announcement by the Hawaii Public Affairs Council, the church argued that if same-sex marriage were legalized, (1) it feared that the state would revoke its ministers’ licenses to perform marriages, (2) the church would become subject to lawsuits charging discrimination when its ministers refused to perform same-sex marriages, and (3) because the church could help the Attorney General’s office to present a more complete case than would otherwise be done, given the limited time and resources available to the AG.
• Mar 1995 – The Circuit Court of Hawaii rejects the church’s petition to become a party to the Baehr case. The judge ruled that the request was without merit, since nothing in the licensing law REQUIRES a minister to perform ANY marriage in behalf of the state, rather it merely PERMITS them to do so when it is in harmony with their religious practice and belief. Any requirement of the kind feared by the LDS church would be a violation of freedom of religion. The judge further pointed out that although the LDS church, like any individual or organization, might be the subject of a frivolous law suit, the grounds stated in the church’s petition would be without legal merit and thus, this fear, did not constitute grounds for being considered a party to the case. The church had, in other words, failed to demonstrate that it had any “property” in the issues under consideration. Finally, the church, according to the judge, failed in its petition to demonstrate that its arguments against same-sex merit were ones that had not already been raised by the state. The Church appealed this decision to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
• Mar 1995 – Apostle Dallin Oaks begins work on an article on same-sex attraction (personal communication) that will be published in October.
• 17 Mar 1995 – Utah’s LDS governor, Michael Leavitt, signs the country’s first DOMA legislation which indicated that the state of Utah recognizes only marriages between persons of different sex, including those that might be performed in other states.
• early in 1995 – Hawaii Governor John Waihe`e organizes an eleven-member Governor’s Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law and specifically includes two LDS and two Roman Catholic members to represent their religions’ views.
• Apr 1995 – Hawaii legislature rewords Revised Statue 572-1 to define marriage in terms of one man and one woman.
• Sep 1995 – Original Governor’s Commission disbanded after the appointment of Mormon and Catholic members was successfully challenged as a violation of the separation of church and state, and a new seven-member commission is set up, using a different procedure.
• 23 Sep 1995 – The First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles issue a joint “Proclamation on the Family” in which they “solemnly proclaim that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children” and further declare “that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
• Oct 1995 – “Same-Gender Attraction” by Apostle Dallin Oaks published in the Ensign. The article makes the point that the concept of “homosexual” or “lesbian” as a kind of person is incompatible with LDS theology. Rather the terms should be reserved for use as adjectives that refer to kinds of behavior.
• Nov 1995 – General Authority Loren C. Dunn, member of the First Quorum of Seventy and president of the North America West Area, formally appoints a Salt Lake City advertising executive and his wife to do several months of volunteer work for Hawaii’s Future Today. This is part of a process in which other families with expertise of use to political action campaigns are being “called” on short-term missions to support the work of Hawaii’s Future Today. The date for the first of these “calls” is not clear.
• 8 Dec 1995 – Report of the Governor’s Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law is issued. The 400+ page report concludes that the state of Hawaii has no compelling interest in refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.
• late Dec 1995 – An announcement is made that Jack Hoag (the Church’s lawyer in Hawaii, CEO of First Hawaiian Bank, the President and Chairman of Hawaii Reserves, Inc., and member of the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii, Manoa) is working on something important, possibly the creation of Hawaii’s Future Today (personal communication from Bill Woods, organizer of GLEA (Gay and Lesbian Education and Advocacy) FOUNDATION and the HAWAII MARRIAGE PROJECT that brought together the three couples that initiated the court case in behalf of same-sex marriage.)
• January 1996 – First press release from Jack Hoag and Debbie Hartmann (chair of Hawaii’s Future Today and a staff member of BYU-Hawaii campus and prior member of the Board of Education, currently finishing her PhD in psychology with a focus on gay parenting)concerning legislative issues (personal communication from Bill Woods)
• 23 Jan 1996 – The Hawaii Supreme Court rejects the church’s appeal of the circuit court’s denial of the church’s petition to become a party to the Baehr case, and the court reiterates the reasons given by the circuit court as valid.
• 28 Jan 1996 – North America West Area Presidency (Loren C. Dunn, President) sends a letter to be read in all California wards, urging members to express their support for legislation against recognition of same-sex marriages being considered in the state.
• Feb 1996 – President Hinckley travels to Hawaii and confers with Catholic bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo on plans for a common campaign against same-sex marriage. The meeting takes place on LDS property in Laie on the north shore of Oahu.
• ca. Feb 1996 – The LDS church instructs its contracted marketing agency in Hawaii, Hill and Knowlton, to develop a plan for setting up a group, now known as Hawaii’s Future Today, to serve as the formal lobbying group which will approach the legislature, the courts, and the public on issues regarding same-sex marriage. Hill and Knowlton had been contracted several years earlier by the Church to monitor and promote its efforts in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. It’s top heads are now offered “unlimited funds” to develop and conduct the marriage campaign in Hawaii. The marketing agency completes the initial planning and then bows out of further work, fearing potential repercussions from its other clients, who include gay-rights interests. Linda Rosehill, a professional lobbyist and employee of another marketing agency was contracted to carry out the implementation of the original plan. Later, the agency itself disavowed any company connection, although the staff member had worked on the project using company office facilities. The staff person was also the National Committeewoman of the Hawaii Democratic Party. When her role in creating the Church lobbying organization came to light there was a move to find a replacement for her Democratic position. She lost the next election in about a 70-30 split of votes by the convention body. The sole issue in the race was her covert work in creating the lobbying organization, Hawaii’s Future Today, an activity which was held to be unethical by her opponents.
• The costs for setting up Hawaii’s Future Today and facilities for its use were provided by the church and by Hawaii Reserves, a property management company that is solely church-owned, and which took over the properties previously managed by Zion’s Securities. Hawaii Reserves paid the initial bills from the first marketing agency and the consultant’s fees from the Democratic party’s National Committeewoman. One of the largest contributors to Hawaii’s Future Today is the political action committee Hana Pono (named for the LDS hymn “Do What is Right!”) which had been organized by the LDS church on 21 August 1977 to spearhead its anti-ERA political efforts in Hawaii. Hana Pono contributes $1,869.95 during first year’s efforts.
• Once organized, Hawaii’s Future Today, under the direction of Jack Hoag and Debbie Hartman, began its public advocacy of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and of a constitutional convention to write this same ban into the Hawaii state constitution. (Currently the Hawaii constitution bans ANY law that uses sex as a distinction. This is why the marriage law does not specify anything about the sex of applicants for marriage licenses.) It also files amicus curiae briefs along side the LDS church in the court cases that follow, a bit odd, since both groups make the same points in their briefs.
• After Jack Hoag’s LDS connection is highlighted in the media, he is replaced as President of Church-owned Hawaii Reserves. The new President is Dan Ditto, the Church’s lawyer who supervised the marketing agency’s work in planning the establishment of Hawaii’s Future Today. Reports about the activities of Hawaii’s Future Today in LDS affiliated newspapers, such as Garden Island, avoid mentioning the organization’s LDS origins and affiliation, so this change was perhaps to help perpetuate the image of Hawaii’s Future Today as a grass-roots movement.
• HFT reports receiving $31,000 in donations prior to 11 May 1996. Of this, one donation is in the amount of $29,000. There is a $1,000 donation cap on moneys received by political-action groups in Hawaii, so this donation would be problematic if HFT is defined as a political-action organization.
• 16 Feb 1996 – Rex E. Lee, issues a position paper arguing for the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex partners.
• 9 May 1996 – Hawaii’s Future Today places political ads in Hawaii’s two daily newspapers at a cost of over $1,000. Representative Terrance Thom, supported in these ads, wins his reelection by 54 votes. The Senate Judiciary Chair who opposed this group’s political position and was opposed by the ad lost his re-election bid.
• 21 May 1996 – Hawaii’s Campaign Spending Commission mails a complaint to Hawaii’s Future Today that indicates that the ads are in violations of Hawaii’s regulations governing spending in political campaigns, indicates the fines for such a violation and explains that Hawaii’s Future Today must file the required papers to register as a political-action committee. Follow-up letters dated 20 Jun repeats the information about the complaint. Hawaii’s Future Today does not respond by registering as a political-action organization, but asserts that it does not plan to involve itself in lobbying or campaigning for candidates.
• Jun 1966 – LDS headquarters acknowledges that it has been “calling” married couples with political action and advertising expertise on short-term missions to aid the work of Hawaii’s Future Today.
• 9 May thru 11 Jul period – Jack Hoag, co-Chair of HFT, made several public statements stating that HFT would be endorsing and backing political candidates.
• 11 Jul 1996 – The Campaign Spending Commission sends another follow-up letter to Hawaii’s Future Today about the complaint concerning its 9 May ads. It indicates that because it understands that it believed that Hawaii’s Future Today “did not intend, nor plan to engage in any activity as” such a political organization it would not require their registration as a political organization.
• Aug/Sep 1996 – The church and Hawaii’s Future Today submit amicus curiae briefs to Judge Chang of the Circuit Court of Hawaii in the Baehr case making the same appeals against same-sex marriage. Both argue that “traditional marriage” is in itself a compelling state interest that justifies sex discrimination in marriage, an argument that had been explicitly rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court earlier.
• About this time, Jack Hoag and Mike Gabbard, LDS chair of Alliance for Traditional Marriage, cooperate to form a PAC called Save Traditional Marriage-’98 to lobby against same-sex marriage. Hawaii’s Future Today donates $1,000 to Save Traditional Marriage-’98. Several principals of HFT also make personal donations. STM-’98 also receives a $200 donation from the Australian Consulate, a violation of Hawaii law that forbids accepting contributions from foreign countries. Linda Rosehill, the lawyer who set up HFT, becomes the coordinator of contribution efforts for STM-’98.
• Sep 1996 – Baehr trial begins in Circuit Court of Hawaii, Judge Kevin Chang presiding. The trial lasts two weeks.
• Dr. Richard Williams, a Professor of Psychology from Brigham Young University testifies as an expert witness for the state. Having examined 20-30 research studies of children reared by gay and lesbian parents, he critiques nine of them for having methodological flaws. He also testifies that he is generally skeptical of the social and behavioral sciences as valid sources of information about human families, that social science (including psychology) is so flawed that no fix, reconciliation or overhaul can correct it, that he doubts the ultimate value of psychology and other social sciences, and that he believes that there is no scientific proof that evolution occurred. He also admits that his own critique of studies regarding gay and lesbian parenting is a minority position.
• 24 Oct 1996 – Hawaii’s Future Today sends out a letter soliciting its members to participate in Save Traditional Marriage-’98’s Steve Covey seminar dinners.
• 5 Nov 1996 – Hawaiians vote on a measure to call a constitutional convention for the state. The vote is 163,869 in favor of the convention, and 160,153 opposed, with 45,295 ballots being blank and 90 marked both as in favor and as opposed. On advise of the Attorney General, election controller Duayne Yoshina declares the convention mandated, but the count is challenged by the AFL-CIO in a lawsuit filed on 25 November.
• 03 Dec 1996 – Judge Chang of the Circuit Court of Hawaii finds in favor of the same-sex plaintiffs. Judge Chang explicitly rejects the “expert” testimony of Dr. Williams, saying that his testimony “is not persuasive or believable because of his expressed bias against the social sciences” and that his own testimony therefore impeached his credibility as an expert witness concerning social science. Judge Chang concludes that since the state has failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in denying marriage to same-sex couples, the plaintiffs prevail. The case is immediately appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
• Jan 1997 – North America Northwest Area Presidency (Glenn L. Pace, William Kerr, and C. Scott Grow) send a letter to be read in all Washington state wards, urging members to express their support to government leaders for legislation against the recognition of same-sex marriages being considered in the state. The letter uses the same boilerplate as the 28 Jan 1996 letter mailed in California, indicating coordination of the action from a higher level than the Area Presidencies.
• 21 Jan 1997 – Debbie Hartmann, chair of Hawaii’s Future Today testifies before the House committee in support of a constitutional amendment permitting the legislature to limit marriage to “one man and one woman”. Her testimony includes the following remarks concerning HB 118 (which would establish domestic partnerships for non-heterosexually married partners): “With respect to HB118, which would provide certain benefits to unmarried couples, as also noted in our testimony, while we do not support any type of legislation that would undermine the special relationship of marriage between one man and one woman, certain elements of the bill are acceptable. We support the type of humanitarian benefits the bill addresses and the fact that it applies to all people.”
• 3 Feb 1997 – Debbie Hartmann testifies before the Senate committee in support of the constitutional amendment and repeats HFT’s qualified support for the Reciprocal Beneficiaries bill (HB 118). The Reciprocal Beneficiaries bill and the constitutional amendment are both passed by the legislature on the same day. It’s final wording is, “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples”. This amendment must be ratified by a majority vote of the citizens in the next general election in November of 1997.
• 7 Mar 1997 – President Gordon B. Hinckley formally discloses in a newspaper interview published in the LA Times that the church had made a commitment at the top levels to play an active role in the same-sex marriage issue: “`We’re engaged right now in the same-sex marriage problem in legislation in Hawaii,’ Hinckley said. `We just made a decision today concerning the filing of a brief in that case. That’s spreading around the country now pretty largely and we’ve become rather actively involved in that kind of thing,’ he said” (LA Times, 7 March 1997, Page B-1).
• 24 Mar 1997 – In a decision written by Judge C.J. Moon, the Hawaii Supreme Court decides that a vote held during the preceding general election on whether to hold a constitutional convention failed to secure enough yes votes, since the Hawaii constitution requires the majority on any constitutional question to be the majority of all ballots cast, not just of all marked ballots. This decision is challenged by convention supporters in the federal courts.
• 3 Apr 1997 – It is reported by the media that Jack Hoag and Debbie Hartmann have been telling legislators that they will implicitly accept domestic partnership legislation in order to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming legal.
• 16 Apr 1997 – Debbie Hartmann states HFT’s support for Gay family health insurance to legislators and reporters.
• 16 Apr 1997 – Hawaii legislature passes an amendment to the Hawaii constitution that reads “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples”. This amendment requires ratification by a vote of the people. The vote is scheduled for the following general election, in November of 1998.
• 28 Apr 1997 – Reciprocal Beneficiaries bill passed and will take effect 1 July 1997. The revised version of the bill which was passed has been expanded to include all domestic partners who may not legally marry (eg., a widowed woman and her co-resident son, a brother and sister, or two persons of the same sex).
• Jun 1997 – Consistent with their prior qualified acceptance of HB 118, Hawaii’s Future Today does NOT lobby for a veto of the Reciprocal Beneficiaries Bill.
• ca 1 Jun 1997 – Duane D. Feekin, President and CEO of Bank of Hawaii, writes to Governor Cayetano requesting a veto of HB 118 because of its “flawed language that will create much confusion and mistrust within our communities”, its early effective date (1 July 1997) “which does not allow for adequate research to fully understand the impact on the many sectors which make up the Hawaii community”, and “the full [economic] impact of this Bill has yet to be determined.” The financial impact concern is due to the fact that the bill has been expanded to cover more than the small number of same-sex couples that the bill was originally aimed at. Feekin’s letter is written in his role as chair of the Hawaii Business Health Council and the letterhead lists thirty prominent businesses (mostly tourist-related) as members. The council is not listed in the telephone directory or registered with the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii or Small Business Hawaii, raising the suspicion that the council was formed to create the appearance of business opposition to the Reciprocal Beneficiaries legislation by an organization other than First Hawaiian Bank, the actual initiator of the letter (a charge made by an unidentified bank officer to Bill Woods.). Jack Hoag, cochair of HFT, is a member of the Board of the First Hawaiian Bank and its previous CEO.
• 10 Jun 1997 – ITT Sheraton’s Hawaii Region announces that it is terminating its membership in the Hawaii Business Health Council because it (1) was unaware of the letter to the Governor of Hawaii or the organization’s position regarding reciprocal benefits and the same-sex marriage legislation, (2) was not advised or consulted on the matter addressed in the letter, and (3) had not seen the letter.
• 23 June 1997 – Deadline for veto of Reciprocal Beneficiaries. Governor Cayetano allows the bill to become law without his signature in protest over its expansion to include couples other than committed gays and lesbians.
• 1 July 1997 – Reciprocal Beneficiaries law goes into effect. Application forms are distributed by Governor’s office.
• 10 Jul 1997 – U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra orders Hawaii to hold a new vote on holding a constitutional convention. He finds that the U.S. constitutional guarantee that citizens have the right to know the effect of their vote has been violated because election judges had informed voters that unmarked ballots would not be counted in determining whether the majority of votes favored a convention. Judge Ezra orders the new vote to be held by 6 December 1997, which would result in a convention being held in June of 1998 if the measure passes.
• 20 Jul 1997 – Hawaii’s Future Today’s chair, Debbie Hartmann, asserts that “The organization has always supported rights for homosexuals in areas traditionally covered by civil rights–equal access to employment, housing, and public services such as transportation. The issue of marriage, however, is something completely different.” (Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu, Hawaii).
• Unknown at this time Hawaii Supreme Court is expected to take up the state’s appeal of the Circuit Court decision in the Baehr case. If this occurs and the Court upholds Judge Chang’s decision, same-sex marriages will become legal in Hawaii.
• by 6 Dec 1997 – Date set by Judge Ezra for vote on the holding of a constitutional convention. If passed, this convention would be held in June of 1998 and would likely alter the state constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
• 14 May 1998 – W.E. Woods reports that Save Traditional Marriage-’98’s report to the Hawaii Ethics Commission indicated donations from the following LDS sources: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ($4,225), POLYNESIAN CULTURAL CENTER ($1,025), BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY – HAWAII ($1,200); HAWAII’S RESERVE, INC. [the LDS Church-owned land management corporation] ($1,000); and LAIE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION [an appointed unit of HAWAII RESERVES, INC] ($1,000)). This does not include officers of said organizations which are also to be calculated in aggregate amounts – JACK HOAG, Chair of HAWAII RESERVES, INC. contributor of $400 and DEBI HARTMANN, BYU-HAWAII $400; GEORGE SHEA $200 (all known to be directly linked to these organizations). Total of $5,225 does not include others who may also be connected such as family members, staff and other personnel of Mormon owned or controlled entities.
• abt Jun 1998 – Debi Hartman, co-chair of HFT becomes a candidate for the Hawaii Senate. Her campaign manager is Linda Rosehill.
• 5 Nov 1998 – Voters will cast ballots on the constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to limit marriage to “opposite-sex marriage”. If ratified, same-sex marriages may still be performed until the legislature imposes such a limitation, a limitation that the Senate is not likely to support.

Crapo-R1997-Chronology of LDS Involvement In Same-Sex Marriage Politics