Note – From the mid-1840s until 1978 people of African descent were generally not allowed to have the priesthood or attend the temple in the LDS Church. (Attending the temple is different from going to Church in the LDS faith.) This is in spite of prior practices and temple rules that said they could. Since the primary difference between people with African roots and people with northern European roots is skin color, what if the situation were reversed? This post tries to use humor to address this serious issue. This should not be taken as evidence that the author considers anything about the topic of racism or priesthood to be less than serious. This role reversal is designed to make us think about the issue in a different light.
I was born a redhead. Yes, I’ve “blonded” out a bit as I’ve aged, but both of my daughters were born with deep red hair. So, I know all about red heads. Sometimes we are also known as “gingers.”
While the red hair can attract attention, it isn’t the red hair that is the issue for me. It is the redheads’ skin color. Let me explain.
People with red hair have very fair skin coloring. We have almost no melanin in our skin. Melanin is the substance that makes skin darker. I joke with my kids that our skin is so transparent that we can see the blood rushing beneath it. I often look with jealously at my Hispanic or black friends who have such beautiful, uniform skin tones. My skin is reddish and blotchy with a few dots called freckles. In high school I was constantly asked, “Are you blushing?” “No, I just walked up a few stairs, thank you very much.”
A redhead’s skin is very sensitive to sunlight. You may notice if you go walking with a redhead, they sometimes seem to jump from shadow to shadow. We all avoid sunlight. When we read a Twilight novel, we understand how the vampires feel—the sun is not our friend! I often take out my SPF 50 sunscreen and slather it on before I will go out into the sun. It is supposed to allow me to stay in the sun 50 times longer than usual. For me – let’s see now — 50 times what I can usually stay in the sun for without getting a sunburn…that would be……ummm, doing the math here…carry the one…….Hmmm……about 7 and a half minutes before I start to burn.
“But, you are just ‘white’!” you may say. No, my wife is white. Her family comes from Norway and Sweden. She is white. Blindingly white. Her skin looks different than mine. She is white with white and yellow undertones. My ‘white’ is blotchy reddish-white, just like most other redheads. She can go out in the sun. She can lie on the beach. She can go swimming. If I go out in the sun, I will burn. If I lie on the beach, I will burn. If I go swimming, I will burn. I tell my students my goal in life is to walk from my office to my car without getting a sunburn.
That said, it isn’t all bad having redhead skin. My skin tone is GREAT for collecting vitamin D in a fogbank. And when I visit Scotland, I have to wear my coat anyway – so it’s not a liability.
My daughter teaches in first grade. She has very red hair. One of her students, whose family came from Africa, was having difficulties with one teacher. We will call this six-year-old student Jamal (not his real name). When asked about it, he said, “She just don’t like me. She’s white and white people don’t like black people like me.” My daughter responded, “That’s not true, Jamal. I’m white and I like you.” “No, Miss Gordon. You’re not white,” responded Jamal. “You’re PINK!” Even a six-year-old can see the difference.
The difference between people we label as “black” and people like me is how much melanin is in our skin. The more melanin, the darker the skin tone. I don’t have very much melanin, so that is why I am the color I am. Some of you may say, “But there are other differences besides skin color!” Yeah, that’s true – my hair is red and theirs is black. But again, that is simply caused by the amount of melanin. My hair is straight and theirs is curly. True. But, my wife’s hair is very curly, and she has family members whose hair would look right at home on someone of African descent (except that they are blond). As for other traits, you can find a wide variety of looks throughout both the white and black communities. In other words, there is as much diversity within each community as there is between the two communities.
So, here’s a thought exercise: What would happen if The Church announced that there was a ban on redheads having the priesthood?
What if it was melanin-deficient people who couldn’t get the priesthood, while melanin-rich people could? What if Gingers went thought a period of slavery because of our skin color? What if we were discriminated against during the 1950s and not allowed to eat in certain places, get certain jobs, use certain bathrooms, or ride in a taxi with someone who had more melanin then we do?
I can just image the conversations in the ward.
“Oh look, a red-haired girl just moved into the ward. Finally, someone you can date!”
“Can you help me with my Northern European History class? You know all that stuff, right?”
“Can I touch your hair? I’ve never seen red hair before. Does it feel different?”
“I was doing family history work last week and was horrified to find out that some red-haired genes got in there somehow. Old great-grandad or grandma must have been cavorting with the field help!”
Yeah, those would be terrible conversations. And yet, I have heard all of those comments from church members.
“But, it isn’t skin color. It’s lineage!” you cry. So let’s talk about lineage a bit. There are those who believe there is a tie between redheads and Neanderthals.[1] Neanderthals are in the redhead’s linage. Apparently, Neanderthals had red hair, and some Neanderthal genes are found in northern Europeans. They know there was interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.[2] They just are not sure if the red hair trait came from the Neanderthal, or if it developed independently. If Neanderthal man had red hair along with the red-hair skin tones, it would explain one of the great scientific mysteries of why the Neanderthals died out: obviously, the sun came out!
More evidence of having a different lineage is studies that show “people with red hair need larger doses of anesthesia and are often resistant to local pain blockers.”[3] My first response to this information is “Well, duh! We are used to pain because we walk around sunburned all the time.” But, it turns out it has more to do with our genes.[4] Just ask any operating room nurse or OB nurse how comfortable they feel when a redhead comes in. I have been told by several nurses that if there is going to be a problem, it will probably be with the redhead. So, we are a bit different from other people. Whether this comes from our homegrown genes, or from Neanderthal genes, it certainly shows that our lineage might be different from others—we are demonstrably different than other people. If something is to be restricted based on lineage, it could just as easily be restricted against us redheads.
It’s important to think about what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot. I often hear the refrain, “The Levites were the only ones who had the priesthood at the time of Jesus. So that was a priesthood restriction just like the blacks being restricted in modern times.”
That situation is totally different. With the Levites, only one group held the priesthood and nobody else did. With the modern priesthood restriction, everybody had the priesthood except for one group.
Think of it this way. Everyone understands that in sports there needs to be a team captain to communicate effectively. But, that is totally different than everyone being allowed to play the game except for one player who is forced to sit on the bench. Our brothers and sisters of African descent were forced to sit on the bench. How would that make you feel?
“But, the priesthood ban was a long time ago. What do you want me to do about it?”
I first recommend reading this short article on LDS.org on Race and the Priesthood. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Secondly, if someone asks if Mormon were racists, the correct answer – the only possible answer — is yes. There is no need to get defensive about it. Of course they were! By modern standards, everyone who came through that period would be considered racist today. It is, however, unfair to judge them harshly for their views. It was what they were taught. It was the norm. They did the best they could. Using modern standards, even Abraham Lincoln would be considered racist by many. Additionally, racism doesn’t only exist in the United States. It is a world-wide issue of us vs. them. Skin color has simply been used as an easy identifier of “them.”
Racism has always been with us. Our better selves understand that we need to move beyond that. If someone asks if there was racism in the church, simply say “Sure, and we are trying to repent!”
Third, if someone then asks, how could we have had a prophet if we had such a racist policy? Think about this: if you think that prophets don’t work in a world filled with prejudice and racism, you need to go back and reread the Bible and Book of Mormon. Think of the Samaritans, the Lamanites, the people of Nineveh, and the Philistines. God only gives us what we are willing to accept. It is up to us to try to become more like him.
Many members of the Church believe the ban came from God, or at least that God used the ban for a wise purpose. These positions are speculative. No written revelation has been found that explains the priesthood and temple ban. Some quote scriptures to justify the ban, but historically those scriptures were pulled in as explanations after the ban was already in effect.
Why was there the ban? We don’t know. I can make an educated guess, but my guess would be as valid as your guess—and just as speculative.
Instead of guessing and speculating, let’s simply reach out to each other and embrace one another as brothers and sisters—even redheads! Let’s acknowledge that racism exists and has existed even within the Church. Let’s not nit-pick over how much melanin we have in our skin. Does it really matter? Do you differentiate between your blond children your brown-haired children and your red-haired children? Is there a difference between them?
No, I don’t think so either.
Now please hand me my hat and sunscreen. I have to go outside again.
[1] Red hair a legacy of Neanderthal man http://www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropology/neanderthal1.html
[2] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding
[3] https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/the-pain-of-being-a-redhead/
[4] http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/10/why-surgeons-dread-red-heads/
About the Author
Excellent observations.
As a ginger, loved this thought exercise! And we were discriminated against in history–redheads burned as witches, and lingering anti-red feelings in the UK such as using the Weasleys in Potter books as stereotype: http://www.themythsandhistoryofredhair.co.uk/heresy.html
One problem with this article: you ask, “What if Gingers went thought a period of slavery because of our skin color?” Well, actually, they kind of did. The original American slaves were the Irish. It wasn’t even unheard of for Irish slaves to have African masters!
Still, overall, a good treatment. I would argue it’s an irrelevant one, since there’s still no evidence that God didn’t institute the temporary restrictions, but a good treatment nonetheless.
Thanks for your article, Scott. In my younger years I was a redhead but I’ve since greyed out. Once I was at a stake priesthood meeting. When I walked into the chapel I saw some brown brothers from the Samoan Ward talking to a white brother who had served his mission in Samoa and was skilled in the Samoan language. As I walked to my seat one of the Samoan brothers noticed me and turned to the group and said something in Samoan. They laughed. Realizing I was the butt of a joke I asked what he had said. The white brother answered, “He said that with your freckles you are only half brown but you’re still a good man!” I couldn’t I complain about that!
Reverse engineer it…Later, it leaked out that the priesthood change was accompanied by significant spiritual manifestations. If the ban was due to man made racism, why didnt the brethren get an accurate scolding or, get “set strait” on the issue upon restoration? Some received corrections in the D&C…why not now if the ban was a man made mistake? Does that make sense? There must have been a revelation at some point banning blacks… if a grand revelation restoring those rights was required…
Thanks for your consideration,
You have a way with words. but I don’t believe this political climate is the right time to share your thoughts regarding this particular subject. Please remember all of the negativity and animosity that is presently the consistent undercurrent. I would like to see a focus on the positive, not the negative. Those issues weren’t even during many of our life spans. So, please let it rest. Concentrate your talents on the present and present blessings we are living with.
So, what would be the end effect on the exaltation and eternal life of all of those red heads if God were to so order it?
I think you need to do more research much of your information is biased and wrong.
The end effect? I think it is best said in this Book of Mormon scripture (edited a bit here):
2 Nephi 26:33
33 … and he 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.
Additionally, we can only hope that we will no longer get sunburned.
So, in the end, all of those red haired people who kept all of the commandments and received all of the ordinances that they were allowed to receive would attain a full exaltation, no?
Glenn
I’m not sure it is correct to call members of the church racist as it it used in its current context. Racism suggest a hatred or animosity towards a certain group. There is no suggestion that such animosity was the trigger for the priesthood ban. I’m sure many ‘white’ members were as perplexed about the ban as ‘black’ members.
Your comments about redheads are hilarious — said by someone with 75% red hair in the family.
The thing is, we receive revelation through our prophet, but revelation may be no different for the prophet than it is for us below the watchtower. The heart has to be ready to receive, and the mind has to have studied the matter out. David O. McKay prayed about possibly lifting the ban and apparently received no approval.
The thing that still stings even though we’ve “moved on” is that we don’t know if it was a commandment from God or the failings of our mortal men prophets
Brother Gordon,
Great story. I got me to thinking that most, if not all people, need to work on racism. If someone wants to argue the point; just ask, “Can you tell me that you do not have, or ever have had a racist thought?” In and out of the church, we can all repent of racism. In and out of the church, we can all work on loving our brother and sisters.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It was well thought out, clever and had me laughing. There is, however one serious concern I have about emphasis on the idea that we have no evidence that the ban was of God because we have no written record of a specific revelation.
There are very important reasons that any Latter-day Saint should assume it was the will of God and ask for evidence that it was not, rather than the opposite assumption you implied. There are many examples of prophetic counsel and policy that we rightly assume are inspired by God without being shown specific revelation on. Just because we feel uncomfortable with this particular one is not sufficient reason to assume God’s prophets were mistaken.
For a believing Latter-day Saint, the odds far more favor the priesthood ban being of God, rather than opposed to His will. If the head of this church, Jesus Christ, felt as uneasy about this policy as those who feel it couldn’t have been from God, He would not have allowed it to happen in the first place or at least for it to stay in place so long. There are multiple recorded examples of Christ intervening to change policies of the church. Some of which were against strongly held opinions of many of the apostles at that time. There is no precedent from the past that indicates that the Lord would not intercede to change such an impactful policy on so many of God’s children if it were not according to his will.
Consider what Elder Kimball wrote to his son in 1963 when President Mckay was struggling with the same issue that Kimball did 15 years later: “I know the Lord could change His policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error (?) which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure. . .”
Notice that he called the policy, “His Policy”. There was no hesitancy or wondering by Elder Kimball at that time that it might not be of God. The possible error he referred to could not have been about the ban itself being in error, for Elder Kimball would not expect a policy of God to be in error. The error had to be referring to a possible error or error in thinking or feeling of people which necessitated the policy. By people I mean any member of the church or even those out of the church, not just the blacks.
To say that Jesus Christ was not in favor of the ban continuing until it was stopped in 1978 is to say that President Mckay was not in tuned enough with the Lord for Him to get this all important message to the prophet. Yet we believe President Mckay was just as much a prophet as Lorenzo Snow, who had Christ appear to him just to change the way presidents of the church should be selected.
With all this in mind, the odds are massively stacked against the possibility of the ban being against God’s will for a believing Latter-day Saint. This being the case, arguing for the probability that it was not God’s will is an argument against living prophets. It is an argument that supports the idea that unpopular positions of current prophets are likely wrong as well and supports those members who feel justified in opposing current leadership. It is a spiritually dangerous position to take.
An old bishop of mine served a mission in Portugal who had very red hair and very pink skin. He told me that a young child once approached him on a bus to feel his hair. The child ran towards his mom who was laughing as the child explained to her that his hair was not hot.