Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People Within Mormonism

by Newell G. Bringhurst

Originally published shortly after the LDS Church lifted its priesthood and temple restriction on black Latter-day Saints, Newell G. Bringhurst’s landmark work remains ever-relevant as both the first comprehensive study on race within the Mormon religion and the basis by which contemporary discussions on race and Mormonism have since been framed. Approaching the topic from a social history perspective, with a keen understanding of antebellum and post-bellum religious shifts, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks examines both early Mormonism in the context of early American attitudes towards slavery and race, and the inherited racial traditions it maintained for over a century. While Mormons may have drawn from a distinct theology to support and defend racial views, their attitudes towards blacks were deeply-embedded in the national contestation over slavery and anticipation of the last days. This second edition of Saints, Slaves, and Blacks offers an updated edit, as well as an additional foreword and postscripts by Edward J. Blum, W. Paul Reeve, and Darron T. Smith. Bringhurst further adds a new preface and appendix detailing his experience publishing Saints, Slaves, and Blacks at a time when many Mormons felt the rescinded ban was best left ignored, and reflecting on the wealth of research done on this topic since its publication.

254 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1981

Reviews

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book and deserved a second edition, the first edition having been published in 1981. However, the second edition doesn't really catch up the first edition--it reprints the first edition, with forewords and afterwords explaining why the first edition deserved to be rereleased and listing additional sources that would help one catch up to 2018. Nevertheless, the book charts the history of the Church and how it came to adopt the priesthood/temple ban with a lot of accuracy. This is not meant to be a faithful history, but I wish it had been more neutral. Examples of what I mean are the descriptions of Joseph Smith's First Vision and of the Book of Mormon. The former includes loaded words like "claimed" and "alleged," as though no one could sincerely believe that the First Vision occurred, when in fact millions of people believe just that. Less loaded words like "reported" or "wrote" would be more effective. The latter involves the assumption that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, rather than translating an ancient record. Anyone who knows anything about Joseph Smith, writing, the translation process, or the Book of Mormon would know that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon--you need not believe that it is a genuine work of ancient scripture to see that the "Joseph Smith wrote it" theory is ridiculous. Whatever the reader believes the source of the book to be, the arguments based on Joseph Smith's authorship fall flat and are incredible. The book also should have taken another run past a copy editor--embarrassing misspellings include Gordon B. "Hinkley" (it's Hinckley) and the like.
Even with those problems, the book was ahead of its time and makes an important contribution still.

[Larry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Plain Spoken

Whether one may agree or disagree with the author’s hypothesis seems irrelevant.

Relevant to me are:
• The author’s methods which seem careful, thorough, and have been subjected to academic (and other forms of) scrutiny.
• Sources.
• Acknowledgement given to alternative interpretations of source materials, whether in-line or in footnotes.
• A autobiographical sketch enabling the reader to contextualize authorial bias (which bias is inevitable and affects every human). Thank you Newell Bringhurst.
• Logical and well-reasoned interpretations of source material.
• What seems to me intellectual integrity as illustrated for example in his choice of words such as “racist,” “denial of priesthood,” and denial of temple [participation].” Such may feel harsh to some ears. Their use seems accurate to the event, statement, decision, etc.; and, I appreciate that he didn’t seek for “politically correct” or gentler words. Truth teller … regarding the topic and regarding himself.
• Generally speaking, the author seems to have been attentive to distinguishing between association and causation. Nonetheless, his stated hypothesis asserts causation which, as in most any work of history, is impossible to disprove.

Fascinating and new-to-me information regarding attribution of priesthood denial to Joseph Smith, revelation / scripture, socio-political necessity / expediency, and the decades-long formation of stated reasoning as contrasted with the oft-told attribution to Brigham Young.

I love the feeling of error dispelled e.g., errant thought regarding a curse on the children of 1 or 2 people, and the errant thought regarding pre-mortal deeds. Refreshing truth.