A popular strain of Mormon folk doctrine throughout the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries maintained that men of African descent were
barred from the priesthood because of the neutral stance they took during
Satan’s uprising in the premortal life. While never officially or universally
accepted by church members, the doctrine nevertheless found support in high
places. As late as 1939, for example, Elder George F. Richards of the Quorum of
the Twelve alluded to it in the church’s General Conference:
I cannot conceive our Father
consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they
had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they
have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had
not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were
these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no
definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren
and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious
matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent,
neutral, or lukewarm. (59)
Among those who actively repudiated this teaching—while
still affirming the rightness of the priesthood ban—was Elder Joseph Fielding
Smith, Richard’s contemporary and fellow apostle. Fifteen years before
Richards’ sermon, Smith had argued that while it was “reasonable” to think that
“the spirits of the premortal state were of varying degrees of intelligence and
faithfulness,” it “[entered] too much on the realm of speculation” to believe
that “certain nations” were “cursed because of their acts in the pre-existence”
(565). Such was also the opinion of Elder John A. Widtsoe, another early
twentieth-century apostle, who wrote against the folk doctrine in the Improvement Era twenty years later—a
length of time that speaks to the staying power of the folk doctrine (see 385).
Many Mormons, it seems, simply found the explanation too convincing—and convenient—to
abandon.
Contributing, perhaps, to its staying power was Nephi
Anderson’s Added Upon, the most
popular depiction of the premortal life to come out of Mormon culture at the
turn of the twentieth century. Anderson no doubt knew about the teaching, and possibly
even accepted it as truth at some point in his life, so it would not be
surprising if Added Upon showed traces
of this folk belief on its pages. Interestingly,
though, the first part of the novel, which deals with pre-mortality, has only this
to say about neutral spirits during the War in Heaven:
Then there were others, not valiant
in either cause, who stood on neutral ground. Without strength of character to
come out boldly, they aided neither the right nor the wrong. Weak-minded as
they were, they could not be trusted, nor could Lucifer win them over. (18-19)
The novel reveals nothing further about these neutral
spirits or the consequences of their neutrality. Prior to his departure for
earth-life, however, Homan, one of Anderson’s pre-mortal protagonists, makes a
speech in which he glories in the opportunities mortality provides:
“We have been taught that we shall
get that position to which our preparation here entitles us. Existence is
eternal, and its various stages grade naturally into one another, like the
different departments of a school.”
“Some
have been ordained to certain positions of trust. Father knows us all, and
understands what we will do. Many of our mighty ones have already gone, and
many are yet with us awaiting Father’s will.” (27)
As this speech indicates, Homan believes that one’s place in
mortality is determined by one’s pre-mortal “preparation,” which qualifies
individuals to “certain positions of trust.” While nothing about neutrality and
race has an ostensible place in this discourse, the notion that one’s place in
mortality is based on merit could easily be carried through to racist
conclusions. Anderson may or may not have believed the folk teaching about the premortal
origins of black skin—my research into the matter has been inconclusive—but his
novel certainly provided nothing to disarm those who did.
My intention, of course, is not to label Anderson and Added Upon as racist, but merely to
point out that Added Upon contributed
to an understanding of the pre-mortal life that accommodated existing racist folk
beliefs. In his other writings, Anderson focused solely of white characters and largely avoided representations of
non-white peoples—although they occasionally appear at the margins of his
storytelling. For example, Native Americans are objects of respect, anxiety, and
some derision for Anderson’s characters. In John
St. John (1917), the titular character gains new admiration for them when
he reads the Book of Mormon and learns that they are the remnants of “a
civilized people” who “were a branch of the Hebrew race” (9). Also, when he
hears Dora, his love interest, express her fears about the dangers of Native Americans,
he expresses the opinion that “Indians can do no worse” than what “so-called
civilized men” have done (133). We find a similar treatment in The Boys of Springtown (1920), although
in a much more whimsical mode. In this novel, the Native Americans are on
friendly terms with the fictional Utah village of Springtown, yet exposure to the
“tales of wild Indians” in dime novels have made them alluring objects of fear and
danger in the eyes of the local boys (43). Indeed, Anderson capitalizes on the
effects of this misrepresentation to poke fun at his young white characters and
expose their nascent racism:
There had been some discussion whether
it would be wise to take along such a weapon when visiting Indians. The Redmen
might think the fire-arm was meant for them, when in fact, it was only to shoot
sage-hens, should any be seen. “Anyway,” Ned had said, “it might be a good
thing to have a gun along in case the Indians became ‘sassy’.” (35)
At the same time, Anderson’s works themselves are not
innocent of racist stereotypes and pejoratives. In The Boys of Springville, Native American women are “squaws” who beg
for “sooger” and “biscuit” while the Indian men gamble, scowl, and make “gruff
noises” (40-41). In John St. John and
Dorian (1921), the titular characters
name their horses “Nig” and “Old Nig” respectively. Like many of his time,
including Mark Twain and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Anderson expressed a degree of
prejudice and racial insensitivity that grates on today’s readers.
Yet, like Twain and Fitzgerald, Anderson’s prejudices were
intertwined with a potent sense of justice, equality, and tolerance. In John St. John, he subtly equates the
plight of the Mormons in Missouri with those of racially marginalize groups
when he has a bigoted mobber tell John that “in this state there are two
classes of people: ‘Mormons’ an’ whites” (39). Elsewhere, a Mormon shames a
Missourian who kidnaps Joseph Smith by calling him—not unproblematically—an
unmannerly “nigger-driver,” implying that the Missourian is guilty of the dual
sins of kidnapping and slavery (105). As
associate editor of the Millennial Star,
Anderson also frequently promoted justice and equality in his editorials, although
almost always in regards to the rights of religions and creeds to preach and
assemble without molestation. In a 1906 editorial entitled “The Larger Nationality,”
however, he condemns the narrowness of Henrik Ibsen’s avowed Teutonism and asks:
Why stop at Teutonism? Are not other
races our brothers and sisters, inasmuch as all are children of one common Father?
Why should one's love, sympathy, and fellowship be limited to any part of this earth
or any portion of its inhabitants? The mind that grows under the benign influence
of the Spirit of God soon gets rid of arbitrary boundaries of race or geography.
He is not satisfied with the little plot of ground marked off on the earth and called
"his country"; but in every land and clime where there are souls honest
and true there are also his country and his kin. (“The Larger Nationality” 152)
To what extent this statement informs on Anderson’s approach
to interpersonal relationships with his “brothers and sisters” of “other races”
is unknown since his minimalistic journals and letters are silent on the matter.
At the publication of this editorial, John
St. John and The Boys of Springtown
were still to be written, suggesting that his universalism was not without spot
as he matured as a writer and artist. Nevertheless, it is to his credit that he
never used his fiction to promote--at least overtly--the racist folk beliefs of his day,
which is more than can be said about some later Mormon novels, like Emma Marr Petersen's Choose Ye This Day (1956). So too is his constant
advocacy for a place of respect for Mormonism in the national and global stage.
Indeed, in this respect, his novels are not unlike those of his African- and
Native American contemporaries, which likewise used the genre to call attention
to the ills of prejudice and injustice.
Sources
Anderson, Nephi. Added
Upon. 1898. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1939. Print.
---. The Boys of Springtown. Independence,
MO: Press of Zion Printing and Publishing Company, 1920. Print.
---. John St. John. 1917. Print.
---. “The Larger Nationality.” Millennial Star 68.10 (1906): 152. Print.
Richards, George F. “Punishment of Those Not Valiant.” Conference Report, April 1939, 59.
Smith, Joseph Fielding. “The Negro and the Priesthood.” Improvement Era 27.6 (1924): 565.
Widtsoe, John A. “Evidences and Reconciliations” Improvement Era 47.6 (1944): 385.

.
ReplyDeleteWe've now reached a point where you've read waaaaay more Nephi Anderson than I have. And I'm gratified to see that my high opinion of his as a person and an artist keeps getting validated (occasional missteps notwithstanding; no one's perfect).