In recent years, LDS apostle Quentin L. Cook has claimed that early members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were persecuted because they were abolitionists and anti-slavery. Today leaders promote the narrative that latter-day saints of the day were driven out of Missouri in significant part because they were opposed to slavery.
But the historical record tells a very different story—especially when we examine the words and attitudes of the church’s founder, Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith’s Defense of Slavery
In a letter dated April 9, 1836, Joseph Smith wrote to Oliver Cowdery, addressing the topic of slavery. Rather than condemning it, Smith goes out of his way to defend slaveholders in the South and rebuke abolitionists in the North.
He begins by suggesting that slaveholders themselves are more qualified to understand slavery’s supposed “evils”:
Smith goes further, accusing Northern abolitionists of aggression toward the South.
To Joseph Smith, advocating for the end of slavery was not a righteous cause—it was an act of sedition. He condemned those who spoke against slavery, even going so far as to instruct church preachers to avoid teaching enslaved people entirely unless their masters were first converted.
This is not even a neutral position. This is an explicit endorsement of the social order of slavery, rooted in both biblical justification and practical enforcement. Joseph Smith is referring to the biblical curse of Ham—an interpretation historically used by many Christian slaveholders to justify the enslavement of Black people.
Joseph’s Letter to Oliver Cowdery
I am aware, that many who profess to preach the gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the south, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflection of all men, and especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair States of the South [In December 1832, JS dictated a revelation warning of a war in which “the southern states shall be divided against the Northern states.” The prophecy continued, “Slaves shall rise up against there Masters who shall be Martialed and disaplined for war.”], and set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue. [Apprehensions about interracial mixing were common among white Americans in the 1830s. Historian Elise Lemire argues that the growth of abolitionist societies in the 1830s precipitated an “explosion of anxiety about black political rights” and miscegenation. Detractors of abolitionism, she contends, “repeatedly and vociferously called them ‘amalgamationists.’” An editorial in the April 1836 Messenger and Advocate also expressed fear that “amalgamation” could potentially endanger “the chastity of every female.” (Lemire, Miscegenation, 1–2, 54–55; “The Abolitionists,” LDS Messenger and Advocate, Apr. 1836, 2:300.)]
No one will pretend to say, that the people of the free states are as capable of knowing the evils of slavery as those who hold them. If slavery is an evil, who, could we expect, would first learn it? Would the people of the free states, or would the slave states? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact. If the fact was learned first by those immediately concerned, who would be more capable than they of prescribing a remedy?
And besides, are not those who hold slaves, persons of ability, discernment and candor? Do they not expect to give an account at the bar of God for their conduct in this life? It may, no doubt, with propriety be said, that many who hold slaves live without the fear of God before their eyes, and, the same may be said of many in the free states. Then who is to be the judge in this matter?
So long, then, as those of the free states are not interested in the freedom of the slaves, any other than upon the mere principles of equal rights and of the gospel, and are ready to admit that there are men of piety who reside in the South, who are immediately concerned, and until they complain, and call for assistance, why not cease their clamor, and no further urge the slave to acts of murder [Virginian slave Nat Turner led a bloody slave rebellion five years earlier. For two days in August 1831, Turner and a “posse” of nearly sixty armed men (comprising both slaves and free blacks) marched through the countryside killing white inhabitants indiscriminately. By the time he was captured on 30 October, some fifty-seven white people, nearly four dozen of whom were women and children, had lost their lives. Though Turner and his followers were tried and summarily executed for their crimes, the specter of slave rebellion haunted Americans in the North and South during the 1830s and beyond. (Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 323–325.)], and the master to vigorous discipline, rendering both miserable, and unprepared to pursue that course which might otherwise lead them both to better their condition? I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.
And further, what benefit will it ever be to the slave for persons to run over the free states, and excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands who understand nothing relative to their circumstances or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never travelled in the South, and scarcely seen a negro in all their life. How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons—boys and others who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me. And when I see persons in the free states signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an array of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South!
After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! [The notion that black slaves descended from the sons of Ham, who were cursed by Ham’s father, Noah, had been a part of some Christian, Jewish, and Muslim traditions for centuries, and nineteenth-century slaveholders often cited the biblical story as a justification for the practice of slavery in the United States. (Haynes, Noah’s Curse, 7–8; Goldenberg, Curse of Ham, 168–177.)]
…
In my opinion, you will do well to search the book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the church concerning masters and servants. [An August 1835 declaration, which was included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, outlined the church’s belief regarding the proper role of government in society. Among twelve declarations was a clause asserting, “We do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them, contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with, or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men.” In his article published in the Messenger and Advocate, Warren Parrish observed, “God . . . teaches us to pay due defference and respect to magistrates, and rulers, and to be in subjection to the powers that be.” (Declaration on Government and Law, ca. Aug. 1835 [D&C 134:12]; Warren Parrish, “For the Messenger and Advocate,” LDS Messenger and Advocate, Apr. 1836, 2:295.)] All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted: and then, teach the master to use them with kindness, remembering that they are accountable to God, and that servants are bound to serve their masters, with singleness of heart, without murmuring. I do, most sincerely hope, that no one who is authorized from this church to preach the gospel, will so far depart from the scripture as to be found stirring up strife and sedition against our brethren of the South.
Joseph Smith Letter to Oliver Cowdery, April 9, 1836 [Transcript footnotes added in brackets]
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1#full-transcript
Contradictions with Modern Claims
How, then, can church leaders like Quentin L. Cook claim that Latter-day Saints were persecuted because they were anti-slavery? The truth is that early Mormons, including Joseph Smith, were not outspoken abolitionists. On the contrary, Smith’s own words align closely with pro-slavery sympathies of the time. His concern was more about maintaining social order and avoiding conflict with Southern states than about the moral implications of slavery.
In fact, it was abolitionist sentiment that was feared and avoided in early church rhetoric—not slavery itself. Joseph Smith’s remarks show a clear intention to appease Southern slaveholders, not to challenge or reform them.
History Matters
Understanding the actual history of the church’s positions on slavery is essential. Faith-promoting myths that rewrite or sanitize the past don’t help people make informed decisions—they obscure truth and protect institutions rather than individuals.
The legacy of slavery and racism in the United States is deep and painful. LDS teachings and policies—especially those concerning people of African descent—have been shaped by that legacy, including the infamous priesthood and temple bans that lasted until 1978.
Rather than rewriting history to make ourselves feel better about the past, we can and should face it honestly. Joseph Smith defended slavery. He cited the Bible to justify it. And he discouraged church members from opposing it.
Truth doesn’t need protecting—it needs telling.
We invite you to examine the sources for yourself, and if you’ve wrestled with these contradictions as a Latter-day Saint or former member, you’re not alone. Share your story at wasmormon.org and help shed light on the complex, often uncomfortable, truth of Mormon history.
More reading:
- https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1#full-transcript
- Mormonism’s Legacy of Slavery
- Jane Manning James: Faithful Servant, Denied Sisterhood, Sealed into Slavery
- Green Flake, The Slave The Church Accepted as Tithing
- Standing Against Racism?
- Racism and Victim Blaming From God’s Anointed
- President Oaks Fibbing For The Lord Again – Prompt and Public Disavowal of Racism?
- Racist Brigham Young
- Brigham Young’s Racist Remarks on Slaves, Seed, and Priesthood Doctrines
- Book of Mormon Most Racially and Ethnically Unifying Book on Earth
- Mormon Church Whitewashes Racist History in Essay
- Mormon Leadership Dismisses Racist Doctrines as Folklore
- The Lowry Nelson Letters and Racist Mormon Doctrine