It’s time for October General Conference!

With the evolution of technology, we refer you to ChurchofJesusChrist.org. You will be able to watch live during the broadcast itself, or find footage from sessions you may have missed.

For summaries of key sermons, news and announcements from the October 2020 proceedings, visit the Church Newsroom page:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2020-general-conference

God bless you and yours during this weekend, as we listen to words of wisdom and peace.

Three random things occurred this week that reminded me of how history can be obscured.

We Have to Dig

Reading my Alumni magazine, “Mason Spirit”, I was delighted to read the story of Bobbi Bowman and her discovery of her ancestor’s struggle.[ref]Clark, Mary Lee, “Mason Student Featured for Her Family’s Deep History”, Mason Spirit, Summer 2020, p. 5.[/ref]

In antebellum Virginia, it was legal to buy oneself out of slavery, so long as one left the state once becoming emancipated. For fifteen years William Williamson fought for the right to remain on his farm in Virginia, to remain with his wife and children, who were owned by a man on a nearby farm. When Williamson failed, he sold himself and his farm to Thomas Rosser, a master he had chosen. This was in 1857.

Williamson died a little more than two decades later. By that time he and his family had become free because of the 1863 abolition of slavery throughout the United States. But Rosser still owned the farm the family lived on.

But Williamson’s faith in Thomas Rosser was not ill-placed. With Williamson dead, Rosser could have sold the farm to anyone. Instead, Rosser deeded the farm over to Williamson’s widow. But this epic struggle and Rosser’s integrity had been lost to time, until Bobbi Bowman happened to look through the deed records for ancestral names at the Campbell County courthouse. Ms. Bowman’s willingness to dig has blessed both her family and the family of Thomas Rosser.

Records can be Wrong

This month my mother died. The day after her passing, my sister, Lucinda, and I went to the mortuary to finalize burial arrangements and give information for the death certificate. Along the way, we indicated that another sister, Tricia, had been identified as the prospective personal representative (executor). Since the executor would need the copies of the death certifcate, we provided Tricia’s mailing address for copies.

When we got the death certificate, we saw that it lists Tricia as the informant. She wasn’t. But it caused me to reflect on the various documents I’ve looked at in my own search of history. How often was a wrong thing documented? Each error could have seemed innocent or insignificant at the time, but the accumulation of errors can sometimes lead us to entirely wrong reconstructions of history.

Fiction (Often) Takes Liberties

We have watched quite a few movies of late. In some of the fictional worlds, the entire world is created. This is the case in shows like the Star Wars universe or the Middle Earth universe, where there is nothing that indicates those universes have any connection with the real world.

Other fiction is built on the real world. The Twilight saga takes place in a contemporary version of the real world where there just happen to be vampires and individuals who can transform themselves into wolves (and where there are also separately werewolves). The Divergent trilogy takes place in a post-apocalyptic version of our world. The Hunger Games movies similarly take place in a post-apocalyptic version of our world. Grand dramatic arcs can be constructed in these variants of the real world, as many of the dramatic elements are contingent on the fantastical elements of the world the author has created.

Then there is fiction that we are told is a valid story in our world. This is where I struggle the most. Each creator in this space is trying to create a space where the viewer can escape and enjoy a rollercoaster of emotion while safely ensconced in a seat or couch.

Troop Zero is one such recent offering, touted as heart-warming. The dramatic arc of the story is quite satisfying. But in order to achieve this arc, the story significantly mis-represents history.

Take Away

I would that we would recognize that historical documents sometimes contain error. However deeply moving stories can be found by a bit of digging. If we fill our minds with popular entertainment, we risk yearning for imaginary worlds and even becoming grossly misinformed about the actual world in which we live.

Public Square Magazine recently published information about how tone of editorial content is correlated with whether editors comply with the 2018 request by the Church to avoid nicknames for the Church. Where editors give themselves permission to continue using the term “Mormon,” articles are much more likely to be negative in tone.

Despite early skepticism about whether news organizations would bother giving up short terms like ”LDS” and ”Mormon” when discussing the Church, there are indications that about half of the stories on major news websites have made the switch to the full name of the Church.

Where the name of the Church is mentioned in the headline, only ~15% of headlines refer to the Church by its full name.

Ironically, the Public Square article, itself, used “Mormon” in the title:

The article includes a link to a detailed description of methodology as well as detailed data used in the study. Of note, the study didn’t look at whether negative tone was appropriate, just what the tone was and how it correlated with used of the nickname.

I myself saw the power of stepping away from the nickname “Mormon” when I went through my book, Reluctant Polygamist, and replaced all instances of the term “Mormon” that could appropriately be replaced. The resulting copy was much improved, though I haven’t yet pushed out this edition of that book.

Having done this for my own writing, I find myself being irritated when other scholars use the term “Mormon” where it is not necessary. Obviously some of these scholarly works were written before President Nelson requested people shift away from use of the term “Mormon” when discussing the Church. Yet having now seen how much less polarizing our new normal can be, it is fascinating to see the burden we used to place upon ourselves (And sometimes persist on placing on ourselves).

Thanks to The Elizabeth McCune Institute for funding this study and to Christopher D. Cunningham for publishing this on Public Square. Thanks also to Jacob Hess for bringing this to the attention of the rest of us who write for M*.

Pat Chiu, who has been a regular commenter here at M*, passed away this past Wednesday, September 2.

We wrote her obituary in June, when she first learned cancer had been the cause of her recent weight loss and discomfort. She insisted we document the fact that she “never managed a decent loaf of wheat bread.” We listed her profession as “artist,” but she was foremost a mother, with ten children privileged to reach mortality within the umbrella of her covenant with God.

From early June the cancer would often prevent her from eating. But it wasn’t until August 10th that she finally was unable to keep any food down. Like the child of pilgrims and pioneers that she was, she astounded us by continuing day after day thereafter, for the large part clamping her mouth shut whenever we would suggest pain medication.

All her living children traveled to visit her in her final weeks. Immediately after her passing, the daughters in the area gathered to dress her as appropriate for one who had served for decades in the temples of the Lord. We held a wake for family, under a stained glass she had created of the moments before the martyrdom.

If you have beloved parents who remain near, please take a moment and refresh or renew your connection with these who gave you life and who have done so much to form the way you interact with the world.

Pat’s final resting place is at approximately 5th East and 12th North, west of the Veterans Monument and near the Angel Garden. Condolences may be expressed at www.bergmortuary.com. As the obituary states, “In lieu of flowers, please take yourself out to dinner in memory of Pat or donate to your favorite charity.”

Tuesday a person stood outside the BYU Creamery protesting Abraham Smoot, early financial backer of the Brigham Young Academy (now BYU) and president of the BYA board of trustees.

My sister and some of her sons encountered this micro-protest while buying groceries. One son asked, “Isn’t it inappropriate to protest on private property without permission?” Another wanted to get into a debate with the protester. But my sister felt it better to not let her pre-teen sons question or debate someone who felt so passionately about their concern.

Some historians point out that Abraham O. Smoot apparently was considered the owner of three persons who came to Utah as slaves. Two of these persons were emancipated when the US Congress abolished slavery in 1863. The third, Tom, died a few weeks before Congress made ownership of slaves illegal in US territories. Thus, the protester wanted to argue that Abraham Smoot was a slave owner and presumably that Smoot’s name should be removed from the 1962-era administration building on BYU campus.

But what does it mean that Smoot was considered owner of these enslaved individuals?

Let me relate the tale of another enslaved individual, a Paiute boy named Omer Badigee. When the Utah legislature passed the Act In Relation to Servitude in 1852, local Indian tribes saw an opportunity. More aggressive Indians could attack less prepared Indians and sell captured women and children to the white folks, threatening that if the white folks did not purchase the newly-captured women and children, these captured individuals would be killed.

This is how Omer Badigee became an enslaved person as a young boy. The white emigrant who saved Omer’s life can be lauded for that action, but his subsequent treatment of Omer left much to be desired.

Enter Joseph Leland Heywood, at the time U.S. Marshall for Utah Territory as well as devoted member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When Heywood discovered young Omer clothed in rags and infested with lice and fleas, Heywood relieved the un-named savior of Omer’s care.

Heywood returned to Salt Lake City with Omer. Once home, Heywood charged his young ward, Mary Bell, to clean Omer up and get him properly clothed. Mary shaved off the hair that might harbor critters, washed Omer down with kerosene and soap, burned the rags, and clothed the young boy in proper clothing. When she was done, Omer was so transformed that Mary broke down crying and gathered the young boy in her arms. Ever after, the Heywood family considered Mary to be Omer’s effective mother, though she was only 13 when Omer came into the family.

Omer would die of consumption as a young adult, but before his death he was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Family history records show that he was sealed to Joseph Leland Heywood and Mary Bell. I think it could have been the relationship between Mary Bell and Omer that prompted Heywood’s other wives to demand he wed Mary.

But getting back to Smoot, what does it means that Tom’s ownership was attributed to Smoot?

According to an article about the Smoot controversy written by Peggy Fletcher Stack for the Salt Lake Tribune in 2019, Tom had come to Utah in 1847 as the slave of Haden Wells Church, who was part of Abraham Smoot’s company. Later, Church would be a member of the congregation of which Abraham Smoot was bishop.

According to Michael Quinn,[ref]Keynote presentation by Michael Quinn at the DC Sunstone Symposium in 1995, where I was in attendance.[/ref] there were times when slave owners would donate their slaves to Church leaders as part of their assessed tithes. When slaves were given to Brigham Young, he would always free these individuals.

We have reviewed the history of Omer Badigee, an enslaved person whose “ownership” was taken over by Joseph Leland Heywood, who proceeded to treat Omer not merely as a free individual, but as a covenant son.

The records are relatively sparse for Tom, who at some point was transferred from being the slave of Haden Church to being in the care of Church’s bishop, Abraham Smoot.

Some have presumed that this makes Smoot a straight-up slave owner. They have not considered the milieu in which this transfer took place. Specifically, nowhere has it been admitted that Haden Church may have transferred Tom to his bishop as tithing, though this is a practice we know to have occurred with Brigham Young.

What we do know is that Tom was baptized, an ordinance that at the time would only be administered if the person who “owned” an enslaved person concurred with performance of the ordinance.[ref]For better or worse, this practice of refusing to baptize individuals culturally or legally considered dependents of a head of household who objects continues in some forms even today.[/ref] Because of the lack of documentation, it is not clear when Church transferred his ownership of Tom to his bishop, though the record of Tom’s baptism identifies Tom as “Brother Churches black man”. Thus the transfer appears to have occurred after baptism, though it is possible the transfer happened around the time of the baptism.

I assert it is possible that Abraham Smoot, who had served missions in states where slave ownership was legal, was likely bishop to multiple families who had brought slaves to Utah. Further, I assert it is possible that Abraham Smoot didn’t purchase these individuals from his congregants, but that these enslaved individuals were tithed to Bishop Smoot.

Why would Smoot retain these individuals as slaves if they had been tithed? Heywood and Young emancipated enslaved persons given to them.

It may matter that Utah Territory, by the time of Tom’s death, had been occupied for an extended time by a plurality of the US Armed Forces, many members of which Initially were from Southern States. It may just be possible that, in this circumstance, it was safer for a Black individual to be considered property of a master who would defend the Black individual rather than to risk whatever treatment Southern-sympathizing Army soldiers might inflict on a free Black individual.

At any rate, I suggest that the data are insufficient to characterize Abraham Smoot as a traditional slave owner. I submit that Smoot was likely a Bishop in receipt of tithed enslaved persons who, for reasons currently unknown, did not make a show of emancipating these individuals before Congress freed them by legal fiat. At best, I submit Smoot had reasons for characterizing these individuals as under his banner, reasons that are lost to us but with which we might be sympathetic if we fully understood the historical milieu.

Now, I would be completely fine with renaming the 1962-era X-shaped administration building after some other individual, perhaps a prominent individual (ahem, Snow, Cannon, or Wells) who lacked a Y chromosome. There are many able female administrators associated in some sense with Brigham Young Academy that do not yet have a namesake building at the institution that arose from BYA.

But let us not presume that consequences arising from the US Congress establishing Utah Territory as a slave territory (as part of the Compromise of 1850) transforms Utah individuals into slave owners on par with those who built their institutions on the backs of enslaved individuals or who violently rebelled against the Union to perpetuate a supposed right to enslave individuals.