In this series, we have examined ‘Jack Mormon’ Stewart Udall and his stand against racism in the Mormon Church years before the racist policies were ended. He bravely and publicly condemned false doctrine which had historically been taught by church leaders. This doctrine included the concept of skin color as a marker of righteousness or of the curse of Cain or Ham; the concept of less worthy pre-mortal spirits being born into lesser races; and the prohibition on black priesthood ordination – all of which were declared wrong by Udall a full 46 years before the Church finally disavowed them in the 2013 Race and the Priesthood Essay.

We saw that Udall paid a price for his dissent – being lectured by both lay members and Apostles, who held onto those false ideas and castigated Udall for committing the great sin of contradicting church leaders.

While Udall is remarkable among Mormons, there have been other individuals in history who have bravely stood up for their convictions against racism. In some cases this stand was contradictory to the teachings of the individual’s religion and in others it was because of their religion that they felt such a stand was necessary. By examining a few of these brave people, we may be able to learn something about Mormonism’s place in the evolution of social enlightenment on civil rights and racism.

The Catholic – Homer Plessy

On June 7, 1892, a thirty-year-old shoemaker Homer Plessy purchased a first-class ticket for a train trip from New Orleans. He took his seat in a cab which was designated “whites only”. On the surface, Plessy’s presence in the train was not controversial. Just 2 years earlier, Louisiana had passed the “Separate Car Act” which legally required racial segregation of train car accommodations.

Plessy was a socially conscious activist who believed that this law of segregation was wrong. He was involved with a social activism group which was proactive in legally challenging Jim Crow laws. Though Plessy had the appearance of a white man, his great grandmother was from Africa, and after taking his seat, Plessy informed the conductor of the “whites only” car that he was 1/8th black.  In an act that would be echoed by Rosa Parks, Plessy refused to give up his seat or remove himself from the car, and was subsequently ejected from the train, arrested, jailed overnight, and released on bond. His challenge of the law was ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court and the decision in Plessy v Ferguson upheld segregation and facilitated “separate but equal” laws in education and other areas around the nation.

The Presbyterian – John Marshall Harlan

The decision in Plessy v Ferguson was not unanimous. There was a lone dissenter on the Supreme Court who did not concur that the idea of “separate but equal” was compatible with true equality under the law.

In his “Great Dissent”, Justice John Marshall Harlan went contrary to the rest of the Supreme Court, writing:

“In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. “Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.

…The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds.”

Justice Harlan’s ideas had been informed by his Christian faith. He was an active Presbyterian Elder in Washington DC in addition to his role as Supreme Court Justice. When the Presbyterian Church confronted the question of endorsing segregated congregations, Harlan publicly endorsed the statement of a fellow Black minister:

“It may not be popular, but we must stand up for principle and there is no option left to us as Christians. Christ was not ashamed to eat with publicans and sinners, and He drew no distinction among men on account of their color. Christ died for all races …Our duty is to face the issue squarely, and we must hold up the standard Christ set up or sever our connection with Him. It would be positively wrong to set up separate Presbyteries within the same bounds.”

Harlan went on to add that he was against separate Presbyteries for whites and blacks, even if the whites and the blacks were to mutually agree to have them, “For Christianity has nothing to do with race, but only with men. Let us stand in the way of the fathers, and say to the world that as far as our church is concerned, we are race blind and color blind” ((New York Age, 20 Apr 1905, newspapers.com)).

Harlan was a surprising character to hold such positions on race. He was the son of a slave owner and became a slave owner himself when he inherited his father’s slaves. Over time, however, he had evolved in his thinking on race. While he had previously supported laws based on racial divisions, he later changed his position in favor of racial equality, a decision which was met with many accusations of hypocrisy. To these criticisms he simply responded “I’d rather be right than consistent” (“The great dissenter and his half-brother” Smithsonianmag.com)((see an excellent essay on Harlan here)).

The Baptist – Rev. Paul Turner

The Plessy v Ferguson ruling made state imposed segregation the law of the land for the next 50 years. While the ruling invoked the ideal of “separate but equal”, the reality was anything but equality. In 1954 five separate cases challenging the ruling were combined and heard by the Supreme Court, under the heading of Brown v Board of Education. In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, Plessy v Ferguson was overturned, and it was acknowledged that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”. Communities across the nation braced for conflict as black students started to integrate into previously all-white schools in a culture still smoldering with racial tensions.

One of the first high schools to integrate was located in Clinton Tennessee, and shortly afterwards 12 black students started to attend classes. Around this time outside agitators arrived to fan the flames of latent bigotry. White citizens councils were formed, threats were made, and tensions grew – culminating in full blown riots until the governor called in the National Guard to restore order.

 

Even after the riots subsided, threats to and intimidation of the students continued. Soon it became too dangerous and too much to bear – the black students stopped attending classes and boycotted the school. Just when integration seemed hopeless, something remarkable happened: Paul Turner, the young pastor of the Clinton First Baptist Church, stepped forward and told the parents of the children that he would personally escort them to school each morning.

Turner had been following the events in the community and encouraging members of his congregation to set aside their prejudice. He had met with other pastors and outlined the need for clear moral leadership in the community, but those efforts were met with a tepid response. When it became clear that no civic leadership was forthcoming, and the students decided to boycott, Turner resolved to act on his own. He announced his intention to his congregation on a Sunday, and that Tuesday the students joined Turner and a couple of colleagues as they made their way to the school.

On their way, they were followed and jeered at by hecklers from the white citizens council. Pastor Turner walked at the back of the group, placing himself between the children and the agitators. His voice could be heard telling the students “Don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid”. As they approached the school, white students leaned out the windows yelling threats. Once the black students were inside, a group of compassionate white students escorted them to their classes. After briefly speaking with the principal, Turner left the school and began the walk to his church.

Turner was promptly surrounded by the group of hecklers as he tried to make his way. “Let’s kill the nigger lovers!” was shouted by the crowd ((Clinton Jury Hears Girls, The Milwaukee Journal – July 16, 1957, news.google.com)). Despite Turner’s efforts to avoid confrontation, the hecklers became violent. They grabbed him and pinned him up against the plate glass window of a nearby building. Turner attempted to escape his attackers, but he was grabbed and his head was bludgeoned against a nearby car. Turner’s face was beaten by the leader of the group, causing Turner to fight back against his attacker. Two Police officers soon arrived and the assault was broken up. The leader of the mob was arrested and Turner sought medical treatment for his injuries.

News of Turner’s bravery and beating spread quickly through the community. Public support of the protesters waned and the citizens became more vocal in support of the rule of law.  News of the event spread beyond Clinton, as a national news network was present and documented many of the events of that morning. Turner was interviewed and reporters were on hand the following Sunday when Turner delivered a sermon declaring that “there is no color line at the cross of Jesus”.

You can see the newscast account of Turner’s ordeal, including interviews with witnesses and Turner himself, as well as a portion of his sermon, in the following video:

The Methodist – Angie Evans

After the spectacle of Clinton in 1956, communities across the nation began implementing their own integration plans.

Then came Little Rock.

In September of 1957, after months of observing escalating tensions over integration, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus blocked 9 black students from entering Little Rock’s Central High School. The Governor had called in the National Guard to prevent violence, and this action included the soldiers blocking the black students, despite a federal court order for desegregation. One powerful photograph of black student Elizabeth Eckford being heckled by a mob of other students encapsulated the tensions of the time. The conflict continued to escalate as the federal courts did not back down in requiring the school to desegregate in the face of increasing protests, ultimately requiring President Eisenhower to call in the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division to restore order and escort the students to class under armed guard. Over the next few months the tensions diminished, but the conflict lingered in the minds of southern communities.

Nearbye Van Buren, Arkansas was one such community and despite its southern culture the high school completed its first year of integration in 1957 without incident. Just 160 miles north of Little Rock, the citizens of Van Buren watched with the rest of the nation as federal forces imposed integration with military force, and many felt a sense of anger and distrust. As students enrolled for classes the following fall, these feelings manifested in protest. In Sept 1958, around 60 white students staged a strike to protest the enrollment of 13 black students at Van Buren High School. A few days later the protest escalated with the burning an effigy of a black student on the flagpole of the school ((60 WHITE BOYS BLOCK SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS – Sept 5, 1958 ChicagoTribune.com)). It looked like the threatening protests had the desired effects – all 13 of the black students stopped attending school. For the next several days students, parents, townspeople and outside protesters picketed the school.

Several parents and community members formed a White Citizens Council to plan a course of action. Despite what happened in Little Rock, the Council didn’t want integration forced upon Van Buren High School. The next school board meeting was scheduled for Tuesday September 9, and the White Citizens Council planned on being heard. It was at this meeting that the 15 year old junior high school student Angie Evans would enter the picture.

Jessie Angelina Evans was known to her friends as Angie. She was a very well regarded student, having been elected as student body president at the end of her sophomore year, and had spent the summer attending student council workshops, where she learned the basics of discovering the opinions of and representing the student body. Moreover, Angie was a young woman of conscience and conviction, informed by her Christian faith as a Methodist. Several years earlier, as the Supreme court ruling in Brown vs Board of education brought the first hints of the coming turmoil, Angie recalled the words of her Reverend Robert Sessions (affectionately remembered as Brother Bob):

“We will not be fooled by rabble-rousers or political opportunists who for their own selfish purposes try to stir up discord among our people. We know that the alternative to law and order is lawlessness and disorder, and the opposites of peace and love are strife and hatred. As followers of the Prince of Peace, we will work for peaceful solutions, …Every experience in life that tests our faith can be an occasion for witnessing to our convictions, and for examining our convictions in the light of the new experience. In the days ahead each of us will have the opportunity of bearing living testimony to the Christlike way.”
(“She Stood Up” Jennifer Sicking, Bell Tower, Spring 2014 archive.org)

Angie remembered being particularly affected by Brother Bob’s example of empathy and caring ((Angie Evans Bentham “Loves Injunctions” archive.org)). Now as her own community was facing a test of those convictions, Angie again sat in the little St. John’s Methodist church, which was next door to her home, listening to Reverend William Wilder’s sermon on the Sunday prior to the School Board meeting:

“Democracy is a rule of the majority, but it is the function of the majority to protect the rights of the minority, …Moral problems are matters for the human conscience and not something to be decided by a poll of the people.”
(“She Stood Up” Jennifer Sicking, Bell Tower, Spring 2014 archive.org)

Rev Wilder imparted a concept of Christian magnanimity that had a great impact on Angie. She would later recall learning from him that being “unselfish” meant more than passive sharing; it meant active giving —
the seeking out of those stranded in the byways and elevating them to the first place at the table.”((Angie Evans Bentham “Loves Injunctions” archive.org))

As student body president, Angie felt a strong desire to find a way to alleviate the crisis of discrimination. Her parents had instilled in her the ideal that “if you try to do the right thing and do the best you can, things will work out just fine” ((Angie Evans Bentham “Loves Injunctions” archive.org)). Angie knew that doing the right thing meant finding a proper response to the mistreatment of her fellow students, regardless of their race. She decided to apply the skills that she had learned over the summer, and polled the students of Van Buren High School about their opinions on admitting black students to enroll and attend class. Armed with this data, Angie and a few close friends decided to attend the School Board meeting, though they were uncertain what to expect.

Without their parents’ knowledge, Angie and her friends occupied eight of the seats in the auditorium at the school board meeting on the evening of Sept 9, 1958. they listened to the proceedings, surrounded by members of the White Citizen’s Council. The school board was seated on the stage listening to the WCC members make thw case that they should be taking all measures to fight integration as Little Rock had done. In the midst of this debate, Angie Evans stood up and raised her hand to speak.

The members of the White Citizens Council at first saw her as a white student who probably shared their views, and so encouraged her to speak. They could not have anticipated what she had to say. “I think that Negroes should have equal rights in all places… I think they should be allowed to go to white churches and eat in white restaurants. … Negroes have a right to attend a school just as much as anybody.” Angie proceeded to give the school board the results of the informal poll that she and her friends had conducted. They had polled 160 of the school 650 students on the question “Should negro students attend Van Buren High School?” with the results showing that 45 students (28%) answered in the negative, 85 (53%) answered in the affirmative, and 30 (19%) were undecided.

“Speaking for the majority of the school, we think that it is only fair that that the negroes be permitted to attend this high school. …if we don’t object, why should anyone else?” That was enough to turn the white citizens council against her, and they immediately began to attempt to silence the young student body president, but she would not be quiet. She then made an appeal to the conscience and empathy of the members of the white citizens council, asking them “Have you thought what you make those Negro children feel like, running them out of school?”

The school board meeting soon broke up without any action being determined. Reporters had been in attendance at the meeting, taking photographs and documenting the discussion, and several of them approached Angie to learn more about this remarkable young woman who bravely stood up against injustice. “Yes sir, my Pastor Rev. William Wilder says I did right, and so does the principal of the school… lots of teachers support me.” ((Jet magazine Spet 25, 1958 books.google.com))  Why did she do it? “Someone had to speak up… I just don’t think that segregation is a Christian thing” ((“Courage in Van Buren” Time Magazine, Sept 22, 1958, archive.org)).

An account of her stand was published in Time Magazine and garnered a national audience. Her story was given a front page feature in the New York Times Herald under a title taken from Angie’s own words, “Segregation Isn’t Christian” ((Ross, Don. “Segregation Isn’t Christian’.” New York Herald Tribune (1926-1962): 1. Sep 13 1958. ProQuest. Web. 24 Sep. 2015. nypl.com)).  Numerous other papers nationwide ran the story, and an article about her stand was published by Jet magazine to the national black readership. The impact of her bravery cannot be overstated. Less than two weeks later, black students returned to class and the Van Buren desegregation crisis dissolved before ever reaching the intensity that Little Rock’s situation had.

Angie began to receive supportive telegraphs and letters from all around the world. People of many different faiths and nationalities congratulated and thanked her – but the attention was not all positive. She also received hate filled letters, and her father lost customers at the grocery store he ran. Several death threats even arrived in the mail. Through it all, Angie held fast to the conviction that she had stood up for the right. Months later she was named among Mademoiselle Magazine’s Women of the Year, and became one of the youngest women ever to receive the honor ((Medford Mail Tribune (Medford, Oregon) 5 Jan 1959, Mon • Page 2 Newspapers.com)). When reflecting upon this chapter in her life, in an autobiographical essay written years later, Angie saw her stand as a response to love’s injunction, an expression of her Christian faith, and a manifestation of the Spirit’s work in her life ((“Love’s Injunction”  Crisis of Conscience: Arkansas Methodists and the Civil Rights Struggle, Angie Evans Benham, archive.org)).

Reflection

In each of these 4 examples, an individual stood for their personal convictions of brotherhood and justice against the tide of historical bigotry. In each example, it was with the support of their religious conscience that they found the courage to act. With the benefit of our modern perspective we acknowledge equality of race, and so we can see how each of these remarkable people were among pioneers who took important strides in bringing that enlightenment into being.

What would have been the effect if each of these voices and all those who shared their views were cast out or silenced? Would that measure have promoted our enlightenment, or put a stop to it altogether? Each of these individuals grew up in a religious framework. What if those in religious authority had informed them that their conscience was in conflict with the word of God and they should subordinate their hearts to the demands of religious authority or risk being cut off from among God’s people? Would we not see that those leaders would bear some responsibility for keeping the dark stain of racism alive in the minds and hearts of the members, despite the members’ own efforts to break free from the shadows of the past?

Do church leaders have some responsibility for what they teach and endorse under their ecclesiastical stewardship? Then LDS Apostle Spencer W Kimball seemed to think so, speaking in General Conference in spring 1971:

“Certainly, some blame can be attached to the voices from lecture platforms, editorial rooms, or broadcasting stands, and even from the pulpit. Such voices may have to answer for their perpetuating falsehood and their failure to give true leadership in combating evil. “… as with the people, so with the priest. …” (Isa. 24:2.) The term priest is here used to denote all religious leaders of any faith.”
(“Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future” Spencer W. Kimball Acting President of the Council of the Twelve, 1971 April General Conference, lds.org)

In making this point while attempting to condemn other religious leaders, the Mormon General Authorities cannot escape the implications for their own history. Homer Plessy and Justice John Harlan were standing up for equality in the 1890’s. Over fifty years after that, Paul Turner suffered a brutal assault for his moral bravery, and in 1958 Angie Evans, a 15 year old girl of southern upbringing, felt the Spirit of God working in her as she stood up for equality. It was 9 years later that Stewart Udall bravely wrote his public letter in defiance of Mormon racist teachings, only to be rebuked and chastised by men who made the claim to speak for God. It would be 11 years later, still, before the Prophets at the head of the Mormon church were able to acknowledge the simple truth that a 15 year old girl had known 2 decades before, and a catholic shoemaker knew almost 90 years before.

Lowry Nelson and Stewart Udall were both marginalized because of their appeals for equality. The letters written to Stewart Udall bear undeniable testimony to the fact that the blindness of Mormon leaders on the issue of race was transposed in the hearts of the members. Will Mormon leaders not have to answer for “their perpetuating falsehood and their failure to give true leadership in combatting evil” as Kimball so elegantly put it?

What sort of accountability ought those leaders to bear? To many Mormons finally confronting this history, the undeniable answer is that these men can no longer claim the moral authority to declare the will of God. Churches still have practical and logistical challenges which require institutional authority and leadership, but the Mormon church must adopt a position of religious humility which matches their historical record on important social issues. This is not a position familiar to men who have claimed the exclusive right to speak for God, and I am not optimistic that such a change is forthcoming.

Projection and Mitigation

In a speech meant to explain the new position of the church in 1978 after the lifting of the ban on the priesthood, LDS Apostle Bruce R McConkie exclaimed:

“I would like to say something about the new revelation relative to the priesthood going to those of all nations and races. “He [meaning Christ, who is the Lord God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33). These words have now taken on a new meaning. We have caught a new vision of their true significance. This also applies to a great number of other passages in the revelations. Since the Lord gave this revelation on the priesthood, our understanding of many passages has expanded. Many of us never imagined or supposed that they had the extensive and broad meaning that they do have.”
(“All Are Alike unto God” Bruce R. McConkie Aug 18, 1978 byu.edu)

Do you think that Stewart Udall, Lowry Nelson and Jeff Nye didn’t understand the importance of these passages decades prior to 1978? Do you think that any of the non-mormon examples above wouldn’t have seen that these passages are inconsistent with religiously sanctioned racism? The nation was well into its own awakening of racial equality decades before the Mormon Prophets brought about a change.

Compare McConkie’s description of the Brethren’s new enlightened understanding of scripture, with the 1964 statement on biblical principles on racial discrimination by the evangelical Presbyterian church 14 years earlier:

“In view of the current racial crisis in our nation we desire to give an expression of the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ pertaining to this question. We recognize that God has created of one blood all nations of men (Acts 17:26), and therefore all men regardless of their color or race, national origin, are to be regarded as our neighbors whom the Bible enjoins us to love as ourselves (Mat. 22:39), as exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). It makes no difference whether a man be born a Negro, Indian, Oriental, in a high or low station, rich or poor; all are creatures of God’s hands and sinners in His sight with whom “There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:22, 23). …We recognize that a man regardless of his color or race, national origin, does, by faith in Christ, become our spiritual brother in Jesus Christ. Christ died that men of all nations, might be saved. “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom. 10:13) The believing Caucasian Negro, Japanese, Indian, and so forth, is as much in Christ and to be regarded as much in Christ as any other Christian. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) As Christians we are to work toward, and pray for God’s richest blessings on all His people, regardless of race, national origin or color, realizing that, “There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, but Christ is all and in all.” (Col. 3:11) From the spiritual counterpoint, therefore, no distinction exists in the Church of Christ. We feel that all our principles and actions with regard to this issue should be based upon these scriptural principles.”
( [1961-1965]  From the Minutes of the 28th [1964] General Synod of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, pages 43 – 44. pcahistory.org)

The Presbyterians, it seems, were light years ahead of the Mormon Prophets in the correct interpretation of scripture.

McConkie’s entire speech, which I encourage you to read, is the most shameful form of revisionism, and reeks of an embarrassed religious autocracy projecting its own blindness upon the entire membership in order to mitigate the implications of its own moral ineptitude.

Presentism

Some might have claimed that we were being too harsh in our retrospective judgement of Church leaders and members from the past – that we were engaging in a sort of “presentism” whereby we were unfairly applying modern standards to a different age. By looking at the examples of Plessy, Harlan, Turner and Evans we can see that, in the context of history, simple people making no special claim to divine authority lived and risked themselves for Christian principles of equality decades before Udall was chastised by Mormon Apostles for advocating universal brotherhood. These individuals were providing the sort of moral courage and leadership that one would expect from God’s prophets. Stewart Udall was confronted with the reality that, far from moral leadership, the Mormon prophets were using their position and authority to entrench the Mormon people in a position of racial bigotry and religious white supremacy.

Conclusion

Faithful Mormons looking to provide evidence of the greatness of their religion will often cite Matthew 7:20 “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and point to the remarkable character of the stalwart typical Mormon – clean cut, educated, and hard working, with large well-behaved families happy to give service.  This image of the faithful Mormon is a simplistic caricature that does not convey the complexities of any real person’s life, and likely contributes to the toxic perfectionism that leads many into depression. However, the rhetorical device of examining the fruits to determine the value of the tree can be somewhat informative.

In part I of this series we saw how Stewart Udall did not fit in with the faith of his upbringing. He was a fruit that had “turned” and could not stay among the faithful lest he spoil the bunch.

In part II and III we saw the character of Udall manifest as he broke from the Mormon orthodoxy and publicly declared his moral principles to be in contrast to the teachings and policy of the church.  The “fruit” of Stewart Udall was shaped by his personal conscience, not by the edicts of the Brethren.

In Parts IV and V we got a clear view of the fruit that was the product of the Church. From the lowest members to the Apostles themselves, this fruit tasted of bigotry, religious white supremacy, and a zealous devotion to church leaders which castigated any who would dissent.

The fruit of Mormonism in the 1960’s had been shaped by the teachings of Church leaders. This was by design. Joseph Smith famously declared that he was able to keep such perfect order in the members of the Church by “teach[ing] them correct principles, and they govern themselves” ((John Taylor, “The Organization of the Church,” Millennial Star, Nov. 15, 1851, p. 339 archive.org)). We can see those principles reflected in the hearts of the Apostles, men, women, and children who wrote to Udall. An honest assessment of history will inform you as to whether those principles were “correct”.

The examples we have reviewed in this article give a glimpse of the fruits being born by other systems of faith years before Udall’s acts. These fruits were beautiful and transformative andm rather than spoiling the bunch, they had the effect of healing and purging the rotten fruits of the past. Stewart Udall was such a fruit, though cultivated by his own conscience rather than the culture and doctrine of the church. By marginalizing or excommunicating dissenting voices such as Udall’s the church denies itself the progress and healing that such ideas may provide.

The story of Stewart Udall compels Mormons facing today’s social issues to ask themselves: What form of fruit will your life bear – one shaped by your own conscience or one imposed upon you by men who blindly reject love while demanding obedience to their own deficient moral authority?

Afterword

I want to thank F. Ross Peterson for his original article “Do Not Lecture the Brethren” from the Journal of Mormon History which first alerted me to Stewart Udall. His article is a concise account of the exchanges covered in detail in this series. You can find that article here.