Jeff Nye

In 1963 twenty year old student Ira Jeffrey Nye had finished his first year at Princeton when an article he authored appeared in the October issue of the national magazine “Look”. His essay was an honest expression of his experience as a Mormon learning about the Church’s teachings and policies regarding black men and the public statements of the Church leaders.

The article was followed by a brief editorial note describing an encounter the editor of the paper had with Joseph F Smith.

I have acquired a copy of the magazine and a high resolution digital scan of the article can now be found at Archive.org.

The bravery of a young man opening up his troubled conscience in a way which would no doubt earn him condemnation among his faithful peers is remarkable. Jeff Nye passed away in 2010. If his obituary is accurate, he went on to champion civil rights as a journalist and even marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Marriage records indicate that he likely married a woman of Nigerian descent and so it is likely that the issue of racism was close to his heart.

Here is the text of the article:

Memo From a Mormon

Memo from a Mormon – click to view original scanned copy.

In which a troubled young man raises the question of his Church’s attitude toward Negroes

Background

With a political rise of Governor George Romney of Michigan, a Mormon, and the thrust of the Mormon Church into the urban life of our nation, the position of the Negro in the Mormon Church is gaining new attention. There has been a good deal of confusion surrounding this question for some time. Non-Mormons have been confused. As a lifelong Mormon, I have been, too.

The Mormon Church taught me that the Negro was not equal to the white in terms of religious rights and opportunities. It taught me that the Negro was cursed with loss of God’s priesthood and that the evidence, or mark, of this curse was his dark skin. Consequently, the Negro could not hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church and was thus unequal to the white in a very important sense. But the reasons for this doctrine, and the scriptural evidence behind it, had always seemed unconvincing to me.

Statement from JFS

Click to view the Deseret News Article

Then one evening, I came across an article on the subject that quite surprised me. This article, printed in the Deseret News, a Salt Lake City newspaper owned by the Mormon Church, quoted at length one of the highest officials of the Mormon Church, Joseph Fielding Smith, president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, a body that serves directly under the President of the Church and his two counselors in directing the affairs of the Church.

President Smith, whose position is traditionally been the steppingstone to the presidency of the Church, is the Church’s doctrinarian. He officially answers to questions of Mormon youth in the Church’s monthly magazine, The Improvement Era.

The Deseret News quoted President Smith as saying:

“The ignorance on the part of writers who do not belong to us The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in relation to the views of the ‘Mormons’ on the status religiously or otherwise of the Negro is inexcusable. There is no doubt that in the campaign of George Romney enemies will play up the Negro question to the very limit.”

Then President Smith made a statement that surprised me. He said:

“The Latter-day Saints, so commonly called ‘Mormons,’ have no animosity toward the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an ‘inferior race.’ ”

President Smith went on to quote a passage from the Book of Mormon that says Christ. “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free….” Next came his major point: “the [Mormon] Church can do more for the Negro than any other Church on the face of the earth.

“What other Church can baptize them by divine authority and confirm them and give them the gift the Holy Ghost? What other Church can promise them with assurance that they can if they are faithful and true before the Lord enter into the celestial kingdom?…

“What other Church can make a better promise? Moreover, we know whereof we speak, for the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored with all its powers and divine authority.

“The Negro who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom, or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul.

“It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples, and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many Negroes have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations?”

President Smith concluded the article by saying, “it is strange that so many persons are tried and condemned by well-meaning people because of assumed notions and prejudice without a true knowledge of the facts.”

This article said just the opposite of what I had learned throughout my teenage years as a member of the Church.

Reflection on reality

A few minutes after I had read it, I began to wonder about the knowledge I had acquired as a Mormon.

In the weeks that followed, my inquiries led me to the same answer that I had before reading President Smith’s words: the Negro is not equal to the white in the Mormon Church, and equality is impossible as long as the Church denies the priesthood to the Negro. This is the policy of the Church.

The Negro is a junior partner in my Church. He is a junior partner because he cannot hold the priesthood, and the priesthood is the foundation of the Church. Only males hold the priesthood, but the females share it through marriage. A Negro woman who, according to Mormon doctrine, is also cursed, cannot share the priesthood through marriage.

Today, if a Negro becomes interested in the Church, he can join, and he can be baptized and confirmed a member by the laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. He can come to most of the church meetings. But he cannot pass the sacrament, as the 12 and 13 year old boys do. He cannot prepare the sacrament, as the 14 and 15-year-olds do. Nor can he bless the sacrament or perform baptisms, as the 16, 17 and 18-year-olds do. Nor can he perform any of the other duties of the lesser, or Aaronic, priesthood.

A Negro cannot hold the higher, or Melchizedek priesthood or perform any of its numerous and significant functions. He cannot offer the confirmation prayer for a person who has been baptized. He cannot offer the prayer to heal a sick relative or friend or anyone else in the priesthood. Most important, he cannot enter the temple to perform the covenants of the temple. This restricts him. from an important lesson, since temple work in the hearts and minds of many Mormons is their choicest earthly blessing.

Deprived of the privileges of the temple, the Negro cannot be married to his wife and sealed to his family for eternity. This is the highest covenant, the Mormon may solemnize. It includes various secret and sacred rites and rituals that take place in the temple. Nor can the Negro perform vicarious priesthood ordinances for the dead, which is the other major purpose of the temple. These special, secret rites are a real spiritual blessing to many Mormons. The sanctity and beauty of the temple inject a serene spirituality into the Latter-day Saint. Here, he is renewed and refreshed, ready to face daily life with reinvigorated faith.

Lacking the priesthood, the Negro can never hold any position of leadership in the Church, because the priesthood is the prerequisite for any position of authority.

Doctrinal Support

As for scriptural evidence to support this policy, there is very little. There are four books of scripture that are used in the Mormon religion: the Bible: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Out of the four volumes, Mormons can offer only three verses that support, although not conclusively, the Negro doctrine. These three passages are found in the Pearl of Great Price and are a part of a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism in 1830. They appear in a section of the Pearl of Great Price called the “Book of Moses.” In chapter 5, verses 40 and 41, the book says:

“… And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain was shut out from the presence of the Lord, and with his wife, and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of Nod on the East of Eden.”

And in chapter 7, verse 22, the same “Book of Moses” says:

“And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people, which were the ‘sons of Adam’ and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”

Cain, because he had killed Abel, was cast out from the presence of the Lord. Cain and his seed were black. This is all the information given to us. And this is all the scriptural documentation Mormons offer in support of the Negro doctrine. From this, the Church’s concluded that the Negro, or a person with “Negro blood” (whatever that means), cannot hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church. Yet the word “priesthood” is not mentioned in the three scriptural passages. If we consider the remainder of available scriptural evidence, we find contradictions. Nowhere in the four books, does Christ make a distinction between black and white. Possibly one might postulate that this important issue was lost in the Bible through translation or accident. But the Book of Mormon is the second witness for Christ, and according to leaders of the Mormon Church, it is a pure and undefiled translation.

In the article, President Smith quoted a Book of Mormon scripture, 2 Nephi 26: 32-33. The complete text of Verse 33 says: “for none of these inequities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come of the him and to partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come under 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.”

The Book of Mormon thus offers testimony that Christ “denieth none,” regardless of color or race. It says nothing else to contradict this egalitarian view. With this sort of evidence to be found in Mormon scriptures, and even quoted by a high official of the Church, how can Mormons continue to teach and accept a condition of Negro subservience? It is puzzling, unless one keeps in mind, the attitude of overwhelming apathy that Mormons seem to have toward Negroes. Unfortunately, the very existence of the present Mormon Negro doctrine adds to this apathy. In fact, it gives Mormons, a God-sanctioned reason for feeling superior to the Negro.

Familiarity

This is where the Mormon question about the Negro merges into the larger question of racial prejudice. The best way to perpetuate racial prejudice is to provide as little real association between races as possible. Prejudice thrives on ignorance. The Mormon’s Negro doctrine reinforces the ignorance of most Mormons about Negroes.

True, this policy seems to have been feasible up to now, because there are few Negroes in the Mormon Church, because few whites have objected to it and because there have been scarcely any outside pressures. Most Mormon seem indifferent to questions concerning the Negro. But times are changing. The Mormon Church, like so many others, is making major efforts to acquire new members through missionary work, particularly in our urban centers. And as these young Mormon missionaries move about in our cities, they are coming into contact with the realities of the race problem today. They are seeing, at firsthand, the great drive of the Negro for equality, for his full measure of freedom.

Conclusion

Can the principle of equality be reconciled with the Mormon doctrine of denial of priesthood? This is the question, the troubles me today. Perhaps the conditions that shape our world today, will produce a new view. If we Mormons believe that God is directing our Church, we can hope that God is preparing a new revelation that will revise our present Negro doctrine. If we do not believe this, we can hope that the more liberal element of the Mormon leadership will produce a doctrinal change as the problem intensifies.

JEFF NYE

EDITOR’S NOTE

William Arthur, Editor of Look Magazine

The article from the Deseret News, referred to by Mr. Nye, appeared in an issue of that newspaper dated July 14, 1962. William B. Arthur, managing editor of LOOK, asked President Smith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to comment on the article during an interview with him last summer, in his office in the Mormon Church’s office building in Salt Lake City, Utah.

“I stand by every word in the article,” President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur’s presence. “The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potentiality of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word ‘inferior’ is indeed unfortunate.”

Joseph Fielding Smith

Mr. Arthur asked President Smith if a Negro boy can pass the sacrament in the Mormon Church, as 12 and 13-year-old white Mormon boys do. President Smith replied, “No.” He then was asked whether Negro boys could prepare the sacrament, as 14 and 15 -year-old white Mormon boys do. The answer was “No.” “Can he bless the sacrament or perform baptism, as a 16, 17 and 18-year-old white Mormon boys do?” Mr. Arthur asked. Again, the reply was, “No.”

“The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church,” President Smith said. “No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur.

“I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. ’Darkies’ are wonderful people, and they have their place in our Church.”

Response

It is hard to tell how Nye’s peers received this article. Was he subject to church discipline for air the “dirty laundry”? I have not been successful in locating any family or friends who were familiar with Nye (please contact me if you are). It may be that his intention was not to damage the church’s reputation, but to foster discussion about an issue which was starting to cause increasing difficulties for the membership as well as criticism from outsiders.

Heber J Grant Sponsored an annual speech contest at BYU starting in 1922.

In that, his article was a success. The effect of it has been documented in one unlikely place – the records of the BYU Grant Oratorical Contest held 19 November, 1963 – just one month after the publication of Nye’s article. This contest started with over 40 entries and was eventually pared down to 3 finalists. One of them was a political science major from Modesto California named Steven Davis. His speech was a direct response to Nye’s article and it was just as remarkable as its subject. It won the award that year.

You can view the text of the speech at archive.org and I include it here as well:

Challenge for Knowledge

STEVEN B. DAVIS

Several weeks ago there appeared in a magazine of national circulation an article entitled “Memo from a Mormon: A Young Man Questions His Church’s Policy Toward Negroes.” In this article, the young man, a B.Y.U. student two years ago, questioned whether or not the policy of the Latter-day Saint Church toward Negroes was consistent with the Church’s professed desire of achieving equality and brotherhood.

It is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to know what motivated Jeff Nye to write this article. It does seem apparent that the editors of the magazine for which this article was written were interested primarily in selling as many copies of the magazine as possible; an honest essay was never their goal.

But was the article itself completely unfair? Is it possible that the work was an honestly intended one, in which a genuine question was asked? Many apparently believed that this might be the case, for the article generally was treated with tolerance. Yet within this community a type of criticism arose, the nature of which seems particularly disturbing, for the majority of these rejoinders devoted themselves not to a discussion of the religious question set forth by the young man, but instead were devoted to questioning the very existence of the article itself. It was branded “yellow Journalism” by some, yet few explained why this might be so. And one prominent member of the student body dismissed it as a failure of the young man to have learned his lessons as a boy of thirteen, apparently overlooking the fact that this question is a source of serious consideration to many of our Church leaders, let alone a young adolescent.

As members of this student body, it should be a source of considerable pride that the majority of individuals who discussed this work did so on a rational, logical, intellectually honest level. But it should also come as disappointing and dangerous that there were those who were content to dismiss this challenge by tactics that begged the question.

It is dangerous because it is indicative of a trend which exists in our society today that threatens to influence our religious values. There is at present a pressure or coercion to conform, to accept, to live according to the mores and standards of society without ever questioning the basis or truthfulness of those standards. We are asked to live in a society we have not made and never question the wisdom of the makers. Thus, in too many cases, today’s youth matures only physically. Emotionally our youth is forced from adolescence into maturity and given a standard philosophy without ever really experiencing the despair and the joy that comes from questioning what life is really all about. There can be but one result: the premium placed on conformity produces a generation of young people who know all the answers but never know why they are the answers.

This tendency of our society to force an acceptance of its ways is dangerous to us as L.D.S. youth, in that its influence may permeate and corrupt our religious values, causing us to become smug and complacent in our beliefs and intolerant of those who question and wonder. These are serious charges to be made of us, and our automatic response is to deny them. Yet can we say we are entirely tolerant when we dismiss a young boy’s challenge on the basis that he never bothered to learn his lessons? Can I say that I am entirely honest if I always accept and never question what I am told by our leaders? If we make no efforts on our own to increase our knowledge and understanding, can we say that we are living the spirit of the gospel?

There are those who maintain that since we possess the great truths, no challenges need be made, no questions need be asked. We answer those people by replying that true knowledge cannot spring from mere acceptance. We answer by replying that a cessation of a search for greater understanding leads to stagnation and a decay of even that little which had been possessed.

It is not enough, then, to merely dream of our “mansions on high”; our spiritual progress is dependent upon an ever increasing knowledge. So if an individual questions and wonders, if it is done in humility and honesty, can we justifiably brand that person as being weak and destructive?

Brigham Young, as a prospective member of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, could not be satisfied with reading the Book of Mormon only once or twice. Instead, this individual, who was to become known as the “Lion of the Lord,” read the Book of Mormon nine times before he was convinced of its truthfulness. Joseph Smith was asked to conform with the prevailing religious customs of his day and become a member of one of the popular Protestant sects. How fortunate it is for us that he questioned their truthfulness.

Brothers and sisters, our leaders have never become smug and complacent in their beliefs. They have constantly spurned the easy, most expedient path and sought instead the joys that come from questioning and striving. Most of us will never achieve the positions of leadership of these men, yet the joys they have experienced can never be denied us if we will but follow their example in searching for an increasing knowledge of the everlasting truths.

President Hugh B. Brown tells us of the individual who cannot be satisfied with a cessation of questions and challenges. “His is the philosophy,” he tells us, “that if you choose to go from one mountain peak to another, you must also travel the valleys in between and prepare for the darkness and marshes and other entanglements. The light of the gospel is that beacon which will see you safely through.”

The man for whom this University was named once made a similar statement. When asked what a person’s goal in life should be, Brigham Young replied, “There is a Mount Sinai for every child of God if he only knows how to climb it.”

May people never say, “The Mormons are a smug, intolerant people. Instead, may it always be said of us that we are an open-minded, questioning, challenging kind. And may we find that our questions lead us to the peak of our own personal Mount Sinais and to the greatest of joys, a perfect knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Butterfly Effect

Other than motivating the winning BYU speech that year, Nye’s article set in motion a series of events which made history on the issue of Civil Rights in the Mormon Faith. After reading the article, members of the NAACP were “spurred” into action. This is reflected in a news clipping at the time:

“The civil rights supporters were spurred on this week by an article in Look magazine by an LDS church member and 20-year-old University of Utah student. Jeff Nye called upon the Mormon leaders to re-examine the doctrine which prevents Negroes from holding the priesthood.”
(“NAACP to make proposals to Mormon Church” Redlands Daily Facts, 5 Oct 1963, Sat, Page 1 newspapers.com)

The members of the NAACP decided that they would threaten a demonstration at the 1963 October General Conference. It was news of that threatened protest that met the ears of University of Utah professor Stanley McMurrin. In a conversation between with Salt Lake City NAACP chapter president Albert Fritz McMurrin saw an opportunity:

I asked whether there had ever been conversations between officials of the NAACP and General Authorities of the LDS Church on matters of interest to the NAACP. He told me that he knew of none. He assured me moreover that the had made no effort to arrange for conversations with church officials on the civil rights problem or any other matter. Mr. Fritz agreed that it would not be wise to proceed with a demonstration at the Tabernacle without at least first attempting to pursue the question of civil rights legislation with church officials. When I asked if he would like me to arrange a meeting with the First Presidency, he responded with much enthusiasm. So I contacted President Hugh B. Brown, who said that he would like very much to meet with Mr. Fritz and any others who might accompany him to discuss any problems that they would like to put before the Church. Within the next few minutes, with some back and forth telephoning, arrangements were made to have Mr. Fritz and his committee meet with President Brown in President Brown’s office on the following afternoon.”
(“A Note on the 1963 Civil Rights Statement” Sterling McMurrin, Dialogue Vol 12, No2 dialoguejournal.com)

What resulted was the very first meeting between the highest level of LDS leadership and representatives of the NAACP. Hugh B Brown and N Eldon Tanner, First and Second Counsellors in the First Presidency met with a committee from the NAACP and in that meeting gave a good faith commitment that the church was interested in making a statement on civil rights. The members of the NAACP debated whether or not to hold off their demonstration and in the end, decided to see what sort of statement might be made during general conference. Their patience was rewarded by a statement read over the pulpit in the Sunday session by Hugh B Brown:

During recent months both in Salt Lake City and across the nation considerable interest has been expressed in the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.

We again say, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny to any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned that means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States. We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.
(General Conference Report, October 1963, archive.org)

This was the strongest statement in support of civil rights for all races that the church had ever made publicly. The statement was accepted by the NAACP and no demonstrations or protests followed the conference. Brown’s words would be quoted and re-quoted in the press anytime the question of racial equality and Mormonism was discussed in the ensuing years, particularly during the presidential campaign of George Romney.

All of this began, in part, with the words of a “troubled young man” who was not afraid to speak his conscience.

Conclusion

Jeff Nye in Temple Square

Jeff Nye was bold enough to raise a question which undoubtedly separated him from many of his peers. It was a statement that needed to be made. The fact that he was white, himself, was an important facet of the issue. For a black person to speak out against the oppressive nature of the ban would be perceived as someone who had become prideful and wanted to set themselves up against the leaders just so they could get a gain of position. Nye was not at a disadvantage as a result of the ban. He speak out against the error of the policy with nothing to gain and his reputation and social standing to risk. It forced his questions to be confronted without the confounding issue of motive. For his honest confession he was subject to the negative rejoinders and aspersions that can be expected when one sticks one’s head above the crowd to express an opinion that goes against the current.

Steven Davis of Modesto California is just as remarkable for the way in which he responded to the controversial report.  Rather than attack the messenger’s motives or fall back onto the oft repeated Mormon dogma about race, he saw that the way that students were reacting to a thoughtful dissenting voice was a problem in and of itself. He declared that students, Mormon students in particular, can better integrate new ideas on a standard of truth facilitated by independent thought and not rote repetition or blind acceptance.

“the premium placed on conformity produces a generation of young people who know all the answers but never know why they are the answers.”

This lesson has many applications among Mormons today. The Mormons in 1963 were confronted with a society that was moving towards acceptance of minorities as equals to whites. It contradicted over a century of scripture and doctrinal teachings. The church now acknowledges that those teachings were absolutely false and unreservedly disavows them. ((see “Race and the Priesthood” lds.org)) The men and women who rejected those false messages from friends, bishops, apostles and prophets paid a price for staying true to their conscience.

They stood apart from the rest because they realized that the way to find answers to those questions was not by simply relying on what was being told to them, but to doubt and to question and search and reason. So while everyone around them had to wait for the leaders to come around to truth, these illuminated people claimed it for themselves.

The next time that you encounter someone who takes an unorthodox view of issues such as women ordination to the priesthood or how to accept gay men and women – remember the lessons learned here. Sifting truth from error without relying on second hand dogma takes practice and the confidence in your own inner voice will grow as you exercise it more frequently. This has all happened before. It is possible that it could happen again. Are you ready?

P.S.

If you know the family of Jeff Nye or Steven Davis, please contact me by email or leave a comment. I would love to learn more about the aftermath of this article and the thoughts behind the response.

P.P.S.

I have located another clipping which tells of some of the reaction of people to the national article.

A black Michigan State Senator read the story and immediately asked LDS Michigan Governor George Romney if it was accurate and whether or not he shared the views regarding the status of black people which the article pointed out are part of Mormon theology. The Senator incorrectly stated that the article inferred that black men were not able to get baptized.

George Romney was a prominent LDS businessman and politician who was ahead of his time in working for civil rights, though he was careful not to directly confront LDS leaders about the issue within the church. Despite this, LDS Apostle Delbert Stapley penned a letter to Romney attempting to quell his support for civil rights legislation and his advocacy for racial equality. you can read about that communication in the blog post “George Romney and the Delbert Stapley Letter.” I haven’t been able to locate the Governors reply, if any was made. Romney’s record on civil rights would speak louder than any statement, however, and in that he was exemplary.