Leland H. Gentry’s 1965 dissertation “A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri, 1836-1839” was part of a wave of new Mormon scholarship of the 1960s that sought to reinterpret Mormon history in more academic terms, avoiding the polarities of the “traditional” anti-Mormon/pro-Mormon battles of the 19th and early 20th century. After reviewing the literature on Mormon Missouri during the late 1830s, Gentry noted in his introduction that

No study exists which has attempted to bring together the various and oft-conflicting points of view concerning this era. The common picture one gets of the Latter-day Saints from a reading of the literature connected with this period is either that of an arrogant and designing people entirely to blame for their misfortune or else that of an abused and much-maligned people who were entirely blameless of any ill which befell them. The view one gets of Lilburn W. Boggs is either that of a dedicated state executive dealing with a difficult problem or else that of a determined and self-appointed persecutor of the Mormon people. This study is an attempt to clarify the historical picture in these and related areas. If this objective alone is achieved, this work will have justified itself on at at least one important count. (BYUS edition, 3)

In order to achieve his goal, Gentry used more thoroughly than any scholar before him the official documents published by the State of Missouri and the U.S. Senate in the aftermath of the Mormons’ departure from the state, which contained the correspondence between Boggs and his militia commanders, other government documents, and legal papers associated with the November 1838 preliminary hearing on Joseph Smith’s treason and other charges, thereby providing strong non-Mormon perspectives. Gentry also used the Reed Peck manuscript and John Corrill’s history, which illuminated the voices of prominent Mormon dissenters. Utilizing these sources demonstrated Gentry’s willingness to move beyond “traditional” Mormon interpretive frameworks and seek to understand alternative points of view. However, given his CES/BYU affiliations and due to the fact he was writing with a pre-critical understanding of many of the problems associated with Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, it was not unclear where Gentry’s ultimate sympathies were located.

While not arguing a distinctive thesis, Gentry identified five primary objectives: 1) to examine Mormon colonization efforts in northern Missouri after 1836; 2) to analyze Mormon thought and teachings in light of the social conflicts of the period; 3) to develop an interpretation of the roles of Mormon dissenters and the Danites in the conflict; 4) to examine the Mormon War of 1838, and 5) to discuss the 1839 expulsion of the Saints from Missouri. In many ways, Gentry set the agenda for the next half century of scholarship on these issues and his interpretations generated continued debate and discussion. Stephen C. LeSueur, who worked for a time with Gentry at BYU’s Religious Studies Center, published his masters’ thesis as The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri in 1986. LeSueur went further than Gentry in seeking to understand non-Mormon views and contextualizing them within the burgeoning scholarship on violence and mob activity in Jacksonian America. Most controversially, LeSueur extended Gentry’s analysis of the Danites by claiming that Joseph Smith not only knew about and approved their activities, but that he even at times directed depredations against non-Mormon Missourians. In 1996, Alexander Baugh completed his dissertation, “A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri,” which challenged many of LeSueur’s more controversial interpretations and tried to steer the conversation back toward Gentry’s more sympathetic view toward the Mormons. In addition, in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s several significant articles appeared on the Mormons experience in northern Missouri that enlivened the scholarly debate (much of the most important literature is summarized by LeSueur in his 2004 contribution to Excavating Mormon Pasts).

In the midst of this scholarly activity on Missouri, Gentry’s work has remained an important and relevant contribution. Although for several years his dissertation was primarily available only in research libraries, he published several articles based on his doctoral work. In 2000, his dissertation was finally published in the BYU Studies/Joseph Fielding Smith Institute series “Dissertations in Latter-day Saint History.” Before his 2007 death Gentry had discussed publishing a revised and updated edition with Greg Kofford Books, although Gentry’s health and death made that ultimately impossible. Friend of the Juvenile Instructor Todd Compton agreed to conduct the necessary revisions for publication, which occurred in 2010.

In the preface of the retitled Fire and Sword: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri, 1836-1839, Compton described his purpose as “providing a reading experience for the reader that integrates old and new research as smoothly and inconspicuously as possible. I have done necessary editing and rewriting to shift the book from the requirements of a dissertation, including conventions of dissertation prose, to meet the needs of a more general audience in scholarly but still accessible style” (xv-xvi; it should be noted that Compton was aided by Lavina Fielding Anderson’s sharp editing skills). In addition to reworking the book’s name, chapter titles, subheadings, and often awkward prose, Compton also updated footnotes and included helpful addenda after most chapters that updated the scholarship since 1965. (While I have not conducted a systematic assessment of Compton’s updates, my initial reading convinced me that he did his homework.) Compton for the most part did not take sides in scholarly debates, which probably would have been inappropriate given the nature of his project, but it does make me wonder what this revised and updated work would have looked like had Gentry survived and had been able to reflect on the impact of more recent works on his early, foundational interpretations (for a thoughtful recollection of his experience editing Gentry, and for Compton’s own thoughts on some of the more controversial issues, see here).

As with any work nearly a half century old, Gentry’s dissertation represents another era of scholarship. While Compton’s alterations improve the work’s readability and provides insights into where the study of Mormonism in northern Missouri has gone during those decades, Fire and Sword is unlikely to move debate beyond the polarized paradigms established in the 1980s and 1990s in LeSueur’s and Baugh’s works. Neither does Fire and Sword participate to any significant degree in the new generation of scholarship that uses Mormon history to illuminate broader themes in American history. But that was not likely the intent of the publisher, Gentry, or Compton in reissuing the work. Rather, it was to make available to a new audience a classic work that remains relevant today. And with the BYU Studies/JFSI “Dissertations in Latter-day Saint History” series now apparently defunct, causing that edition of Gentry’s dissertation to go out of print, Fire and Sword‘s appearance could not have been more timely.

So what do people read? This probably varies by ward and region. I’ve recommended Rough Stone Rolling to several people in my stake. Some have actually bought it and read it; others tell me every time I see them that they keep meaning to buy that book I mentioned (“What was it called again?”). Curious to know more, I asked those who had read it a couple of questions yesterday. First, had they read an academic work on Mormon history before Bushman’s book? The answer was invariably no. What did they like about Bushman’s book? They all liked that it portrayed the prophet in a much more complex fashion than they had seen before, and even though it had some eye-opening parts, they were glad they had read it. Were they more or less likely to read another academic work on church history after having read Bushman? Most said they were more likely to do so, if they had a good recommendation. So I recommended Givens’ By the Hand of Mormon. This last issue was a recurring theme in the answers I received. Most people who I talked with like to read, but they don’t know where to find academically-oriented church history books that they can “trust.”

So, what do y’all think? Have you talked much with members of your wards about their reading habits? Are there better works that I could be recommending other than Rough Stone Rolling? Several people, when I mention the book’s length, have shown some hesitance to commit to such an endeavor. What other books would y’all recommend?

I considered adopting Flake’s book on Reed Smoot, since it’s accessible and designed for undergraduate classrooms, but then I had second thoughts. What if Romney somehow flames out and isn’t even close to getting the nomination? Whatever interest my students had in learning more about Mormonism would probably die out quickly if that were the case. And while Flake does a great job of showing an instance of early twentieth-century Protestant resistance to a Mormon holding elected office, I’m not sure that it really addresses “Mormon issues” in terms that make sense of the rise of the Christian Right and Christian Nationalism since the 1970s.

What do y’all think? Is there another accessible monograph that gets at the issues more directly? Perhap’s Matt’s new book, but I’m not sure where a comprehensive history would really fit in such a course. Maybe if there were a targeted book that dealt with Mormons and Evangelicals in the Culture Wars and the rise of conservatism, but I can’t think of one that really fits. Last I heard, John Charles-Duffy is writing his dissertation on this, but that won’t be available for quite some time. More importantly, is this even something that really needs to be addressed at this point in time? Maybe it would be more reasonable to wait until there’s actually a Mormon in the White House–and therefore substantial demand among students for more detailed information on Mormon history–before using a full-length monograph in a survey course.

–

For the record, I won’t be voting for Romney or any Republican for that matter come next November.

Purpose

The Church History Department announces an opening for a one-year internship with the Joseph Smith Papers Project. This will be a full-time temporary position beginning in October 2011.

Responsibilities

Duties will include research related to document analysis (textual and documentary intention, production, transmission, and reception) and to contextual annotation of documents (identifications and explanations). Research will involve work in primary and secondary sources for early nineteenth-century America and early Mormonism. Work will include general assistance to volume editors.

Qualifications

Bachelor’s degree in history, religious studies, or related discipline, with preference given to those with master’s degrees and/or in doctoral programs. In addition, the candidate should possess excellent research and writing skills as well as the ability to work in a scholarly and professional environment that requires both personal initiative and collaborative competence. Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Apply at http://ldschurch.jobs. Click on the “Browse Jobs” link and then click on Advanced Search after signing in. Enter 68174 in the “Job Opening ID” field. Please attach a vita and writing sample to your application.

Week 1: Background to Early Mormonism

Week 2: The Smith Family and Joseph Smith’s Youth

Week 3:  Founding Visions

Week 4: Translation of the Book of Mormon

Week 5: The First Converts and the Organization of the Church

Week 6: Early Dreams of Zion

Week 7: Sidney Rigdon and Early Ohio Mormonism

Week 8: Expulsion from Zion

Week 9: Canon Development and Priesthood Expansion

Week 10: 1837 Kirtland Crisis and 1838 Mormon War

Week 11: Founding Nauvoo

Week 12: Baptisms for the Dead and the Temple

Week 13: Relief Society and Nauvoo Polygamy

Week 14: Secular Nauvoo

Week 15: The Martyrdom

Week 16: Succession Crisis

How would you set up the schedule differently? Remember, only sixteen weeks total. I should add that this post (and the ones I have envisioned in the future), was partly inspired by the new blog, Teaching United States History.

Such speculations were first voiced by government and military officials in their investigations of the Ghost Dance and the spread of Wovoka’s message. Tapping into public associations between Mormons and Native Americans that stretched back to the church’s 1830 mission to the Indians, Brigham Young’s administration of Indian Affairs in the 1850s, Mountain Meadows, and the “Corinne Scare” of the 1870s, these officials claimed that white men, most likely Mormon missionaries, had worked the Indians into a frenzy.[2] The most thorough and scholarly account of the Ghost Dance in the years immediately after 1890, ethnologist James Mooney’s The Ghost Dance Religion of 1890, departed somewhat from the earlier speculations when he concluded that the Ghost Dance was primarily an indigenous movement. Based on interviews with Wovoka and other Ghost Dancers, Mooney described the Ghost Dance as a revitalization movement, with dreams of returning Indian ancestors, a resurgent buffalo population, and the supernatural disappearance of the white colonizers. But rather than achieve this vision through violence, Wovoka taught his followers to love each other, to live in harmony with whites, and above all, to dance. Mooney found little direct evidence of a Mormon conspiracy; however, he did include a brief discussion of possible Mormon influences, most notably the Lakota innovation of a Ghost Shirt that promised invulnerability (although Wovoka claimed invincibility, he didn’t use a shirt), which Mooney speculated could have been based loosely on Mormon temple robes.[3]

In subsequent decades, little if any new evidence surfaced to either affirm or disprove the Mormon-Ghost Dance hypothesis formulated in the 1890s, although some writers, such as Paul Bailey expanded on the earlier theories in his fictionalized 1957 biography, Wovoka: The Indian Messiah. It was not until 1985–when BYU-Idaho professor Lawrence G. Coates published the results of his extensive research in the Church’s archives–that serious scholarship appeared on the subject. Coates’ strong affiliation with the church doubtless guided his research, assumptions, and conclusions, yet his close attention to detail and the archival record set the standard for subsequent research. His article primarily analyzed the evidence adduced by Mooney. First, the ethnologist had relied primarily on an anonymous 1892 pamphlet published in Salt Lake City that criticized the mainstream church for abandoning the Law of Consecration and for not recognizing that the Savior had appeared to the Natives at Walker Lake, Nevada, in March 1890, where he ordained twelve disciples. Coates faulted Mooney for not realizing that this was a dissident voice among the Saints, and therefore was not an accurate representation of the views of most Mormons. Second, Mooney used Fanny Stenhouse’s Tell It All for his description of the temple robe–”a long, loose, flowing garment, made of white linen or bleached muslin, reaching to the ankle”–without realizing that Mormons believed that the garment, not the robe as described by Stenhouse, could provide protection to the wearer. This may seem nitpicky to some observers, especially those outside the faith, but Coates proceeded to more solid ground by identifying all known Native recipients of the endowment prior to 1890 and arguing that no evidence existed to show that these endowed Indians were Ghost Dancers or had Ghost Dancer relatives. Furthermore, although Wilford Woodruff entertained the idea that the Three Nephites were working among the Indians in 1890, he instructed various Mormon Native inquirers to avoid the Ghost Dance, especially in the wake of Wounded Knee, given the rumors of Mormon involvement.[4]

In the years that followed, others wrote on potential Mormon connections to the Ghost Dance, but none of the publications substantially challenged Coates’ conclusions or surpassed his archival research. A year following the publication of Coates’ article, University of Utah graduate student (and current professor at the U) Gregory E. Smoak published an article on the subject in South Dakota History. Although Smoak mentioned Coates’ article in the footnote, he made little effort to engage Coates’ arguments. Smoak was more interested in exploring why non-Mormons were so open to believing the rumors of Mormon involvement, pointing to Latter-day Saint doctrines on Lamanites, the millennium (including the significance of 1890-91), Mormon proselyting and conversions among the Indians in Idaho, and Mountain Meadows. Occasionally, Smoak strayed from analyzing non-Mormon perceptions of the Saints to speculate that Wovoka may have learned of Mormon teachings from missionaries in Nevada, but Smoak offered no concrete evidence for the claim. Smoak later fleshed out his ideas in a booklength treatment of the Ghost Dance among Idaho Natives, but he essentially affirmed his previous conclusions.[5]

Also in 1986, Garold D. Barney published Mormons, Indians, and the Ghost Dance Religion of 1890, the only booklength analysis of the subject to date. Barney conducted no original research and relied entirely on secondary sources, most of which (both on the Ghost Dance and the Mormons) were several decades old when Barney’s book was first published. Things did not improve with the second edition, which appeared in late 2010 (all subsequent page numbers from the second edition).[6] Although he was aware of and cited an unpublished version of Coates’ article, Barney seemed much more interested in providing strained comparisons between Mormon and Native ideas than establishing an empirical link between the two groups. For example, Barney began by stating that the Ghost Dance and Mormonism were both products of the “American Revivalist” movement that swept “the New World in the 19th Century” (9). Scholars of the Second Great Awakening (ca. 1800-1830) will be surprised to know that the Ghost Dance of 1890 was part of the same movement. In claiming that both Mormons and Indians had similar ideas about invulnerability, and that by implication the Mormons were the source of the Ghost Shirts, Barney cited John C. Bennett’s service as brigadier general of the Invincible Dragoons (23). Such an argument relies on broad similarities while ingoring any differences. And although he acknowledged that no evidence supported the claim that Mormonism influenced Wovoka (132), Barney then proceeded to quote Paul Bailey’s biography of Wovoka to heavily imply that there was such a connection, without telling readers that Bailey’s book was a novel (136-37). Examples of such shoddy scholarship could be multiplied and multiplied and multiplied again from the text. Whatever revisions and improvements were made for the second edition, it did not engage any of the solid scholarship that has appeared on the Ghost Dance or the Mormons since 1986 (Barney even continued to cite Coates’ article as though it were unpublished).

So where does scholarship go from here? It’s been over twenty-five years since Coates’ article appeared in print, so one possible avenue would be for someone to return to the archives and look for additional clues in the documents. Another route that is more in tune with the times would be to follow in the vein first explored in detail in Smoak’s 1986 article and examine the broader cultural phenomenon that associated Mormons with Indians in the public mind. What did it mean for non-Mormons when they saw a group of Americans of European descent apparently siding not with the American nation’s manifest destiny to possess the land, but with the “savage” original inhabitants that Euro-Americans had long been intent on displacing and replacing as the true inheritors of the continent (either through warfare or assimilation programs)? In short, despite Mormon claims of loyalty to the Constitution, non-Mormons did not see the Saints as being “on the same team.” A second avenue of inquiry would examine the other side of this coin, by asking how Mormon ideas regarding Indians and the future of the American continent fit into the broader cultural landscape. A notable omission from all of the previous scholarship (Coates, Smoak, etc.) has been an understanding of what I have elsewhere called the Lamanite Great Reversal. Most secondary sources note that Mormons saw Indians as part of the House of Israel, but few explore the implications of the Book of Mormon’s teachings of the Lamanites wiping out Gentile (that is, white) settlement and building a new sovereignty, the New Jerusalem, in the Americas, with the help of converted Gentiles. Mark Ashurst-McGee’s dissertation on the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s Zion nationalism opens up new vistas for exploring how these ideas were received and interpreted in subsequent decades. Such research would need to carefully balance the reception history of these ideas with contradictory evidence that Mormons also taught Indians to adopt farming and live in peace with whites, but the existence of contradictory ideas should encourage nuanced readings of the data, such as a possible application of James C. Scott’s theory of hidden and public transcripts. Looking at how non-Mormons viewed Mormon ideas on Indians and situating those Mormon ideas within broader frameworks should move us beyond simply asking whether there was or was not a direct connection between Mormons and Ghost Dancers (an odd form of reverse-parallelomania) and point us toward the bigger question of how Latter-day Saints and their views of Indians both reinforced and reacted against the American settler colonial project.

________

[1] For the best recent scholarship on Wounded Knee and the Ghost Dance, see Jeffrey Ostler, The Plains Sioux Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded Knee, Heather Cox Richardson, Wounded Knee: Party Politics and the Road to an American Massacre, and Rani-Henrik Andersson, The Lakota Ghost Dance of 1890.

[2] For an analysis of these early speculations, see Gregory E. Smoak, “The Mormons and the Ghost Dance of 1890,” South Dakota History 16 (1986): 269-94.

[3] James Mooney, The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie. DeMallie is the leading contemporary anthropologist specialist on the Ghost Dance. For a recent scholarly work on Wovoka, see anthropologist Michael Hittman’s Wovoka and the Ghost Dance.

[4] Coates, “The Mormons and the Ghost Dance,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Winter 1985): 89-111.

[5] Smoak, “The Mormosn and the Ghost Dance of 1890”; Smoak, Ghost Dance and Identity: Prophetic Religion and Ethnogensis in the Nineteenth Century (2006). Between the publication of the article and the completion of the book, Smoak’s interests had moved more toward understanding how the Bannock and Shoshones used the Ghost Dance to construct an “Indian” identity in the face of American pressures to assimilate. While Mormons and their connections with these tribes remained a key element in his narrative, it was not the primary focus.

[6] Garold D. Barney, Mormons, Indians, and the Ghost Dance Religion of 1890, second edition (Boulder: Bauu Press, 2010). The first edition was published by the University Press of America, which isn’t the most respected press out there, but it gave some academic credibility to the work. One interesting thing that Barney contributes is that apparently Wovoka’s stepdaughter and grandson were baptized Mormons (84).

Pictures of the burial of the Lakota dead and of Wovoka from Wikipedia.

“I was still a relative newbie in the church at this point,” recalled Gray in an interview with The Daily Beast, his quiet baritone voice eerily prophetic. “Frankly, I kind of feel like God conspired for my return.” Gray interacted with senior leaders of the church while working at the radio station and became a respected voice in the community. In 1971, he voiced his concerns about the revolving door of African-American Mormons to the president of the church, explaining that converts were renouncing their faith because they felt unwelcome in the community.

It didn’t help that many of them were accustomed to a hand-clapping, feet-stomping Baptist congregation. “If you go into any black Baptist church, you’re going to get a warm, fuzzy vocation,” says Paul Gill, a musician interviewed by Gray in the film. The Mormon church atmosphere was different, to say the least; one convert in the film compares his first service to a funeral.

…

“We are still struggling, just as this nation is still struggling with matters of race,” Gray explained to The Daily Beast. “They say that the gospel of Christ is for all people, yet its implementation relies on all people, and not everyone is there yet.”

Take a look at the whole article. Here are two links to past posts by Margaret Young, the film’s other co-producer, on the documentary:

The Welcome Table–Reprise

The Making of Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons, Part 1

Margaret Blair Young’s BCC posts

On the morning of June 22, 1929, a man who alleged to belong to the Algonquian Tribe of Indians giving his name as C. C. Edwards and representing himself to be a minister of the Church of Jesus Christ, called at the Office and announced that he had been sent to work among the Oglala Tribe of Sioux [i.e., Lakota] Indians, his Church believing that the Indians were the lost tribe of Israel and he stated that he had come to lead them back.

His features, mannerisms and general characteristics would indicate that he belonged to the Ethiopians rather than to the east coast Algonquins, as he stated.

After some little conversation during which he asked if Pierre and Kadoka were on the [Pine Ridge] Reservation, he announced that he had no funds, that he lived on free will offerings, and asked where he might go to live with the Indians. When told that they were very poor, that one of the Catholic Missionaries collection for one year had been $.35, he left the office. The Police report that he left the Reservation going out with Mr. C. O. Hagel, the stage driver of Rushville, Nebraska.

As I scanned it over, Hope asked if I thought it was talking about a Mormon missionary. I told her that I didn’t think it was one of “ours,” but that I suspected that it might be another Latter Day Saint group, specifically The Church of Jesus Christ (headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania), popularly known as the Bickertonites. This group traces its origins to post-1844. After Sidney Ridgon failed in his bid to lead the Saints in Nauvoo, he returned to Pittsburgh, PA where he built up a following, including William Bickerton, who preferred Rigdon’s (initial) rejection of polygamy. Although Bickerton maintained his belief in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and Rigdon’s early succession claims, Bickerton disagreed with Rigdon’s directives after 1845, and split off from the Rigdonites. In 1862, Bickerton organized The Church of Jesus Christ, a group that accepted the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s early revelations, but rejected Smith’s later teachings. Part of Bickerton’s embrace of earliest Mormonism included an emphasis on preaching to the Indians. Another significant element of Bickerton’s teachings included racial equality in both belief and practice, with his group claiming the first ordained apostle of African descent among groups stemming from Joseph Smith’s 1830 Church of Christ (John Penn, who served from 1910 to 1955). As of 2007, The Church of Jesus Christ claimed over 11,000 members in over 20 nations (3,000 in the U.S.), and is considered the third largest Latter Day Saint group (depending on who’s counting).[1]

The identity of C. C. Edwards remains unknown (to me), although it is conceivable that he was a Native convert to Bickerton’s group, a black missionary, or potentially a biracial individual (a common phenomenon among New England Native groups). Why Edwards was looking for Pierre (South Dakota’s capital) or the small town of Kadoka is unclear, although it is certain that neither is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Edwards left literature at the Pine Ridge agency, including a pamphlet entitled “What is the Indian Mission?”, authored in 1924 by William H. Cadman, President of The Church of Jesus Christ from 1922-1963. This confirmed my initial suspicions that Edwards was a missionary from Bickerton’s group. The pamphlet contains a basic nineteenth-century Mormon exegesis of biblical passages on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concluding with a discussion of Gen. 49:22-24: “22 Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall: 23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: 24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)”

Jacob here is compared to a fruitful bough his branches or his offspring are to run over the wall: Then what is the wall? Historical references prove the fact that in ancient times the sea was considered the wall of the earth. According to Jacob, then Joseph’s posterity is to go over the sea.

When Columbus discovered the new world he found a people there whom he called Indians; from that time until this has not the archers grieved and shot at him? Surely old Israel was inspired when he blessed his son, Joseph. The poor Indian has hardly a place to call his own. The bow and arrow has been the weapon of the Indian; and the prophet shows that his (the Indian) bow abode in strength. And the arms of his hands are made strong by the Mighty God of Jacob, from thence is the Shepherd, the stone of Israel. This is a plain intimation that the Lord will yet assist the poor red man, and among them shall rise a deliverer. Jacob shows that the blessings he had received were greater than the blessings his fore-fathers (Abraham and Isaac) had received and he confers them on Joseph’s head, which extended to the land of America (in Deut. 33rd Chap. 13th to 17th verses inclusive) Moses says to Joseph: “Blessed of the Lord be this land,["] and proceeds to give a wonderful description of the same. This is undoubtedly the land of America that is given to Joseph by the Lord and will yet be restored to his children. [p. 3] Isaiah 16th Chap., 8th verse shows that the fields of Heshbon languish, and the vine of Sibmah; the lords of the heathen have broken down the principle plants thereof, they come even unto Jazer, they wandered through the wilderness; her branches are stretched out, they are gone over the sea. Numbers 21st Chap. shows that Heshbon was inhabited by Israel and the aforementioned chapter shows they crossed the sea.

According to Jacob his blessings prevailed above his progenitors (Abraham and Isaac) unto the utmost (farthest off) bounds of the everlasting hills, and is laid on the head of Joseph. And Moses recognized the fact that Joseph has a blessed land. Jacob was in Egypt when he blessed his sons. Place yourself in Egypt and look for the hills or the land that is farthest off, what do we find? Why the blessed land of America. A people were found here and were named Indians. How came they? Jacob declares that Joseph’s branches go over the wall. Isaiah shows Israel goes over the sea. Jacob says Joseph’s son should become a multitude of nations: Has not the United States of America dealt with the multitudes of tribes of Indians as nations? Where can we look for a fulfillment of these predictions except on this land of America? It is readily seen then, that the red man is of Israel. Jeremiah 16th Chap., beginning with the 14th verse, shows that God will gather Israel from every land or place that they have been driven. But there is an order in the things of God. This same prophet in chapter 31, speaks on the same subject and declares Ephraim is the first born, yet he was his mother’s second child. But our Saviour says, “Ye must be born again, born of water and of the spirit.” Hence, in the great gathering of Israel, God has designed to take note of Ephraim’s posterity first. This being the case it was necessary that the stick of Ephraim (or the Book of Mormon) spoken of in Ezekiel, 37th Chap. should become one along with the stick of Judah (or the Bible). Through obedience to the Gospel we have become adopted Israel, and as adopted children enjoy the blessings of the family fold of our Heavenly Father it has inspired our souls with that desire to bring back his chosen children, yea his lost sheep, back to the fold and family circle of God. Hence, the poor Indian being of Joseph, and to be the first born, our attention has been drawn to them in fulfillment of prophecy. Hence, the origin of the Indian Mission, which we have felt the blessing of God in many times.

You can plainly see the duty of an adopted child, as mercy has reached us, let us be merciful to the ones who have gone astray.

Your brother,

W. H. Cadman,

President of the Church.

January 5th, 1924

________

[1] See Larry Watson, “The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered in Monongahela, Pennsylvania), Its History and Doctrine,” Bringhurst and Hamer, Scattering of the Saints, 190-205. Although members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not use the term Bickertonite (or Rigdonite) to refer to themselves, it is used by scholars as shorthand. A few years back John Hamer posted on John Penn at Mormon Matters, but I can’t seem to locate the post now. Does anyone know if it’s still available? Incidently, rock star Alice Cooper‘s grandfather was an apostle in Bickerton’s group, and although not baptized, Cooper was raised in the faith, leading to the common rumor that Cooper was a Mormon.

My name is Wynetta Martin. I am a Negro and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly called the Mormon Church. My story is not about Negroes, nor is it about Mormons or their church doctrine. It is about my life and how I became convinced to join the Mormon Church. I am now, happily, and willingly, a member of the Church. Many cannot understand why a Negro would want to join the Mormon Church. This too I will attempt to explain, at least from my personal experience.

Perhaps the fact that I quite eagerly, even greedily embraced, and still do, the promises of my church, a church that has been recently the target of many, who have accused of bigotry, segregation, and racism, and even in the most liberal of minds, my church has been cursed and despised, because it will not allow the people of my race the privileges, as yet, of the Priesthood, given to all other races. Perhaps this practice has instilled a great hatred and contempt for me in the eyes of my own people, and even in the eyes perhaps of many white people, both members and non-members, who learn of my conversion – I cannot know what is in all hearts, and I cannot know the thoughts of all I meet; I do not judge them, nor do I ever try to convert or convince anyone of my race, even my parents, that this is the “true” Church. It is right for me, but I cannot hope they will understand, and if they would not find peace in conversion to Mormonism, as I have done, I would not wish it for them. I think many times the acceptance has been more difficult on my part, acceptance of myself for what I am—obviously, colored; and accepting white people’s kindness and friendship inside the Church, as not a patronizing of me, but one of honestly accepting me, although, of course, this has not been universal with all members. The hurts of many, many small slights, both imagined and real, heal, but always I feel faced with new wounds opening, as I try to turn away from snubs, and from derision, from forced toleration that is suffocation and an insult to me on the part of some narrow-minded people both inside and outside the Mormon Church. Some people really believe that all Negroes are “hotel maids” or “Southern mammies” who have gone to their glory, but remain alive in the hearts and labels and breakfast tables on a syrup bottle! A real mammy with a kerchief wrapped around her head, and acres of impossibly white teeth, gleaming like a banner against a black sky of skin is the only image of the Negro race some people comprehend! (11-12)

…

I knew this gospel was true. In comparison to the other churches I had joined, the Mormon Church did not destroy and wear down hopes of salvation. Never was Sunday a scolding session in this religion. The Mormon Church always was to me and is still a renewal of strength, and through chiefly taking the Sacrament of blessed bread and water, I am able to again have courage to face the challenge of the covenants I had taken in the waters of baptism. Also through the gift of the Holy Ghost given to me after baptism my week was aided and I seemed to be able to better live in the fashion that left my heart and my conscience at rest.

Some of the things that impressed me the most about the Church was learning about the practice of the Mormons to have family home evenings with their families, where they study gospel teachings and have evenings of fun together. I was also attracted to their practice of family prayer. But the thing that really converted me was reading the Joseph Smith Story. . . . It brought back to my memory my own very personal experience with the evil powers and praying within for deliverance and feeling the Lord’s spirit of peace come over me. I didn’t really want any lessons, but the Church leaders said that I had to have them in order to be baptized. So I asked if I could have them every night; but they calmed me down to one a week. I was baptized about two months [later].

I felt the Mormon Church had something to offer that no other church had to offer and that was authority to act for God. My heart and my mind was open to the lessons they gave me and I believed them. It was not hard for me to understand them.

While I was taking the lessons from the missionaries I was very excited about the Godhead lesson, learning about the three personages in the Godhead and about the special mission of the Holy Ghost to lead people to truth and help them in their lives The Book of Mormon helped me understand and accept my position as a black person much better. The Plan of Salvation lesson also helped me to understand things much better. . . .These two things, baptism and the Holy Ghost are the only requirements, contrary to popular belief, for entering the Celestial Kingdom and being with God for eternity if one is worthy. Therefore, the Priesthood covenants of the Temple which we are not allowed at this point are not really so crucial as popular belief dictates.

But enough of theology. My life from the moment of my baptism, to state a gross understatement, was changed. I attended church faithfully, I restored a lost ego, I became a better mother, a better daughter, and I learned to truly love my mother. (55-56)

…

A new challenge presented itself as I began to dream of the possibility of becoming a member of the Tabernacle Choir. I knew I could sing, but I did know whether or not I could sing well enough for this magnificent choir. During this time I was working for the Genealogical Society and despite most people’s kindness, may race did present problems. Naturally I knew my race might be a handicap, especially because there were no Negroes in the Choir, nor were there any working with me at the Genealogical Society. My anxiety grew because despite many people’s obvious over-kindness, I knew many people were uneasy about me. One day a lady came up to me and asked in the most sincere innocence, “Are you from the West Indies, Dear?” I said, “No, why?” Well,” she said, “Your skin and hair are of the West Indian type.” I knew of course she wanted to know what nationality I was, for it was beyond her comprehension that a Mormon would be a Negro or vice versa. I told her in a quiet manner that I was a Negro. She said rather flustered, “Oh I’m so glad to see you working here, but are you a Mormon?” When I replied yes, she was close to collapse. Not a vicious woman, but a naïve one, she made it a point to go out of her way every morning and come to where I worked and say, “ Oh hello there, good morning.” (59)

…

I remember one person approached me [in the Choir] and said, “Sister Martin, we are happy to have you with us. What shall I call you—Black, Negro, or colored?” I thin said with a smile on my face and love in my heart, that they could call me anything as long as they spelled my name right!” (62)

…

A few months later, I received an invitation to the B.Y.U. staff Ball. My, was I excited! I was probably the first Black person to attend one of these balls. I had a marvelous time. I wore a long pink gown and danced with the young men who were there.

Dinner was served and what delicious food! I enjoyed every bit of what was served. I can remember a Black man who attended B.Y.U., who was one of the waiters. I had a chance to talk with him and found out that he was a very intelligent person in his early twenties, in his second year of schooling I believe. I could have talked with him all night, but he was too busy being a waiter. Up to this moment I have met at least four Blacks who have attended B.Y.U., and I must say that members of any race, color, or creed are eligible to attend B.Y.U. as long as they meet the general qualifications and are capable of handling the courses. No race is barred from B.Y.U., and I’m here as a material witness. (69-70)

…

The general reception I have received has been amazingly great. So many members have welcomed me with open arms, and I don’t find the general prejudice that so many think there is in the Mormon Church.

I can remember one fireside in 1969, during which someone asked me if I would change my skin to white if I had the chance. My, it’s a good thing when one is led by the spirit, because I was not confronted by this type of question before.

With a smile on my face I said that Mr. Clean, Ajax, and Comet serve the purpose for many things. I don’t care how much I rubbed with those chemicals, nothing would take my built-in tan away. I then said NO, I would not change my color from black to white because it wasn’t meant to be. Each race should be proud of their color. One thing sure, I have the advantage, since I don’t have to sit in the sun all day to get a tan. I have a built-in tan which cannot be removed unless our Father in Heaven takes a part in the transformation.

Many times I am asked if my own race gives me trouble for being a Mormon. My answer is that I have not been given any trouble by my own race. They will often ask me why I would join a church they think is prejudiced. My answer to them is that the Gospel is not prejudiced and I have met very few people in the Church which show any prejudice. There will always be some. No matter what church one attends or what race, creed or nationality we deal with, we will find good and bad people. We must not pin point one race or one religious groups as being prejudiced, or we are paradoxically “prejudiced” in so doing. I hope that I can remove any prejudice that may exist anywhere I go for my race or my church. (70-71)

…

I look forward now to the future, and I hold close to my cherished memories of the past, and I wait for the time, as there is a time for all things, when my family will be given the blessing of the Priesthood in our home. When it is time, God will know it, and that will be the right time. Still, it is difficult for me to imagine how I could possibly be more filled with happiness and how my life could be more saturated with blessings that at the present. I am so very glad that I AM A BLACK MORMON. (73)

Unfortunately, it is not known how Martin responded to the 1978 revelation that lifted the priesthood ban. After spending a brief time as the face of black Mormonism, she seems to have withdrawn from public life and passed away in Hawaii in 2000.