The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) in the 19th century is marked by moments of conflict, migration, and the formation of a new religious identity in the American frontier. LDS leaders suggest that early Latter-day Saints were persecuted for being abolitionists or for holding enlightened racial views, meanwhile, the historical record presents a more uncomfortable reality.
In the 1830s, church members began settling in Missouri, a slave state with deep ties to the institution of slavery, and tensions between Latter-day Saints and local Missourians escalated. Modern church leaders claim that the Saints were driven out, in part, because they opposed slavery. But referring to historical documents, sermons, and church publications of the time shows that early LDS leaders went to great lengths to distance themselves from abolitionism. Church newspapers and revelations explicitly affirmed a non-interventionist stance on slavery, likely to avoid conflict with pro-slavery neighbors and make the religion more palatable to them.
This contradiction between retrospective narratives and documented history demands:
- Were early Latter-day Saints truly abolitionists?
- Was slavery a central issue in the violence they experienced in Missouri?
- Or is this a modern reinterpretation designed to cast the church in a more favorable moral light?
To better understand this issue, it is crucial to explore the actual positions held by early church leaders, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and to consider the broader political and social dynamics of the time — including the Saints’ communal voting practices, religious practices and exclusivity, and land acquisition efforts — that more fully explain their expulsion from Missouri.
The lives of the Saints were threatened as the result of an extermination order issued by the governor of Missouri. In addition, the Prophet Joseph and a few choice associates had been unjustly imprisoned in Liberty Jail. One of the reasons for the violent opposition to our members was most of them were opposed to slavery. This intense persecution of Joseph Smith and his followers constitutes an extreme example of the unrighteous exercise of agency that can impact righteous people.
Quentin L. Cook, LDS Apostle, Personal Peace in Challenging Times, General Conference, October 2021
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/46cook
The narrative that Mormon persecution in Missouri was primarily due to their anti-slavery stance is repeated by leaders and in faith-promoting materials, but it oversimplifies a much more complex historical reality. While it’s true that most Mormon settlers coming from northern states were not slaveholders and that tensions with pro-slavery Missourians existed, to claim this as the primary cause of conflict is historically false and misleading.
Missing Nuance
The reality is that the conflict between Mormon settlers and Missourians was multi-faceted, involving political, economic, and theological tensions. The Mormon population in Missouri grew rapidly and became a political voting bloc, alarming non-Mormon citizens who feared being outnumbered and outvoted. Additionally, Joseph Smith and other church leaders made bold and often threatening theocratic declarations, such as establishing Zion in Jackson County and publicly declaring that God had given them the land. This naturally created tension with Missourians who had already settled and built lives there.
Secret Doctrines and Theocratic Aspirations
Writings from church leaders like Sidney Rigdon, such as his infamous “July 4th Oration,” included militant language stating that the Saints would defend themselves to the shedding of blood and that a “war of extermination” would be waged if they were attacked. Such rhetoric only inflamed the situation further. Moreover, there is documented evidence of Mormon militias (like the Danites) engaging in aggressive and retaliatory actions, such as the Burning of Gallatin and other non-Mormon settlements.
Another often-ignored factor is the concern among Missourians about secret Mormon doctrines, especially early whisperings of polygamy and the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet with divine authority to rule. This raised concerns about the formation of a religious theocracy, where allegiance to Smith and the church could supersede U.S. law. These concerns weren’t paranoid fantasies; they were based on real teachings and behaviors of early Mormon leaders. Joseph Smith even ran for President in 1844.
Persecution or Consequence?
By framing their expulsion from Missouri solely as unjust persecution, LDS narratives create a binary victim-villain dynamic that doesn’t reflect the historical evidence. Yes, Mormons were victims of mob violence, expulsion, and state-sanctioned mistreatment—the 1838 Extermination Order by Governor Lilburn Boggs being a shameful example. But to ignore the actions of the Mormons themselves, which equally contributed to the violence—including militarization, provocative rhetoric, and disregard for local governance—is to rewrite history in overly simplistic terms.
Quentin L. Cook’s claim — “One of the reasons for the violent opposition to our members was most of them were opposed to slavery” — presents a selective and overly simplified explanation for the Missouri-Mormon conflict. While some Latter-day Saint converts likely held anti-slavery views, there is little historical evidence that abolitionism was a central or even significant cause of the hostilities between early church members and Missourians in the 1830s.
Was the Early Church Abolitionist?
The early LDS Church did not publicly oppose slavery in Missouri, a slave state, during this period. Church leaders made efforts to distance themselves from abolitionism. W. W. Phelps, the church’s printer in Missouri, published editorials affirming the Saints’ neutrality on slavery. Furthermore, Joseph Smith’s revelations and public positions at the time were not abolitionist.
We do not believe in setting the Negroes Free.
Joseph Smith, in response to the Question “Are the Mormons abolitionists?”
Elders’ Journal, Far West, Caldwell Co., MO, July 1838.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11
A key document from 1835 (Doctrine & Covenants 134:12) even stated that church members “believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth” but not to interfere with the “bond-servants” (slaves) of others, effectively telling members not to oppose slavery where it was legal.
Retrofitting Morality onto History
Cook’s claim is an attempt to retrospectively frame early Mormons as moral heroes, persecuted for their progressive values. While this may serve a faith-promoting narrative, it distorts the historical reality. Mormons were not driven out of Missouri because they were abolitionists — they were driven out due to a mix of religious extremism, political aggression, and social instability.
And Indigenous Peoples
Cook suggests that early Latter-day Saints not only opposed slaver, but also had uniquely positive views toward Native Americans. The claim that early Mormons “respected the Native Americans” and sought only to “teach them the gospel of Jesus Christ” overlooks the colonial and paternalistic undertones of these missionary efforts, as well as how LDS theology used Native Americans to support its own truth claims.
The heading to Doctrine and Covenants section 101 reads in part: “Mobs had driven them from their homes in Jackson County. … Threats of death against [members] of the Church were many.”
This was a time of tension on several fronts. Many Missourians considered Native Americans a relentless enemy and wanted them removed from the land. In addition, many of the Missouri settlers were slave owners and felt threatened by those who were opposed to slavery.
In contrast, our doctrine respected the Native Americans, and our desire was to teach them the gospel of Jesus Christ. With respect to slavery, our scriptures had made it clear that no man should be in bondage to another.
Quentin L. Cook, LDS Apostle, Hearts Knit in Righteousness and Unity, General Conference, October 2020
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/15cook
The Book of Mormon presents Indigenous peoples as descendants of a fallen branch of the House of Israel who were cursed with a “skin of blackness” due to their disobedience. This narrative was used by early missionaries to justify efforts to convert Native Americans, with the goal of “redeeming” them and restoring them to righteousness — a process that, according to the scripture and church leaders of the time, would be accompanied by their skin becoming lighter. Rather than offering cultural respect or equality, this racist ideology viewed Native identity as something to be spiritually and physically overcome through obedience to LDS teachings. Native Americans were not seen as equal participants in a religious community, but as tools in a prophetic timeline — their destiny to be fulfilled through assimilation into Mormonism.
In Missouri in 1833, our Latter-day Saint values were in direct conflict with the Missouri settlers not of our faith. Many Missourians considered American Indians a relentless enemy and wanted them removed from the land. In addition, many of the Missouri settlers were slave owners and felt threatened by those who were opposed to slavery. Many were in search of land, wealth, and even power.
In contrast, our doctrine respected the American Indians and our desire was to teach them the gospel of Jesus Christ. With respect to slavery our scriptures are clear that no man should be in bondage to another. Our relatively few early black members worshipped together with white members. Finally, our purpose was not to obtain wealth but to establish communities of brothers and sisters that loved one another and lived the principles the Savior taught. Other Missouri settlers felt threatened as large numbers of Latter-day Saints, following the Lord’s revelations, moved to Missouri.
This resulted in immense conflict and persecution for members of the Church. The Saints’ opponents destroyed their crops and some buildings, robbed livestock and personal property, and drove them from their homes. Some Saints were tarred and feathered, whipped, or beaten. Writing to Joseph Smith, who was living in Kirtland, Ohio, William W. Phelps stated, “It is a horrid time, men, women and children are fleeing, or preparing to, in all directions.” In the chaos of the expulsion, families were sometimes divided and many Saints lacked food and other necessities.
These Latter-day Saints regrouped and settled in another Missouri county. A few years later, violence again exploded against them. Their opponents destroyed houses and farms, stole property, and harassed and raped women. In a small Mormon settlement called Hawn’s Mill, Missourians slaughtered at least 17 men and boys. When Mormons tried to defend themselves, the governor of Missouri issued an order that the Mormons be “treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state.” In response to this cruel order, at least 8,000 Latter-day Saints were driven from Missouri that winter while many of their leaders were imprisoned and able to provide direction and comfort to their people for a time only through letters from jail.
Let me say once again, I am not comparing Latter-day Saint trials with the horrendous slavery experience of African Americans. But it does allow us to see religious freedom through a somewhat similar lens.
Quentin L. Cook, Accountability to God Religious Freedom and Fairness, Princeton Theological Seminary, Seymour Institute Seminar on Religious Freedom, July 26, 2017
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/transcript-%C2%A0elder-quentin-l-cook-speaks-on-religious-freedom-at-princeton-university
Many Native communities resisted Mormon missionaries and saw them as little different from other Christian settlers who sought to erase their cultures. The supposed “respect” that early Saints had for Native Americans often came with colonial expectations of conformity, cultural loss, and theological subservience. Additionally, there are historical instances of conflict between Mormon settlers and Native tribes, particularly during westward expansion into Utah Territory, which contradict the narrative of harmonious relations.
No Man In Bondage
Before reviewing some of the discrimination Church members have experienced, let me be clear that this discrimination is not comparable to the devastating personal impact and societal consequences of slavery.
With this in mind, in the early 1830s, as Latter-day Saints moved to Jackson County, Missouri, to establish Zion—a covenant community—opposition arose from other settlers based on numerous issues, including the Saints’ sympathetic views toward Native Americans and the Saints’ disapproval of slavery. The early Saints took seriously Book of Mormon prophecies that the gospel would be taken in the latter days to the descendants of the Lamanites, whom they understood to be Native Americans. These prophecies and the Saints’ attempts to preach to Native Americans raised suspicions among Missourians who were generally hostile to Indians. Even more concerning for other Missouri settlers was the issue of slavery. Already by the 1830s, significant cultural and economic differences were arising between Americans in the northern states, where slavery was largely outlawed, and the southern states, where slavery was expanding. Most Church members were from the northern states and did not own slaves. Most other Missouri early settlers were from the South, supported slavery, and worried that large numbers of non-slaveholding Saints would shift the control of local politics…
Brigham Young also said things about race that fall short of our standards today. Some of his beliefs and words reflected the culture of his time. During this period, Brigham also taught, with respect to race, “Of one blood has God made all flesh.” He then added, “We don’t care about the color.”
Quentin L. Cook, “Be Not Weary in Well-Doing”, BYU Speech, August 24, 2020
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/quentin-l-cook/be-not-weary-in-well-doing/
Similarly, while Cook points to LDS scripture that declares “no man should be in bondage to another,” it must be noted that early Mormonism did not take a firm abolitionist stance. In fact, church leaders often expressed neutrality or appeasement toward slavery in order to avoid persecution in slave states like Missouri. Joseph Smith himself wrote in 1836 that the church believed “it is not right to interfere with bond-servants,” and in 1835, the official Doctrine and Covenants included a section reaffirming that slaves should not be taught the gospel without the consent of their masters. Brigham Young stated that he was “a firm believer” in slavery, and that “inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, … and the decrees of God, we must believe in slavery,” so to say the church was ever against slavery is simply false.
By claiming that early Mormon doctrine stood apart from the racism of the day, current leaders risk rewriting or oversimplifying history. The truth is that the early church (like most institutions of its time) was deeply entangled in the racial, political, and religious currents of the 19th century. While some teachings may have hinted at eventual equality in the eternities, the day-to-day practice and rhetoric of early Mormonism often reinforced the same systems of white supremacy and settler colonialism that were dominant in broader American society.
Alexander B. Morrison’s statement that the LDS Church “has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations” does not withstand even brief historical scrutiny. From Brigham Young’s openly white supremacist teachings and the long-standing priesthood and temple bans on individuals of Black African descent, to the use of the Book of Mormon to justify harmful racial doctrines regarding Native Americans, the church has a clear and documented history of not only promoting but also institutionalizing racist ideologies. For decades, church leaders taught that dark skin was a curse and used scripture and prophetic authority to justify segregation and spiritual exclusion. To claim an unbroken legacy of anti-racism erases the pain experienced by those affected by these policies and misrepresents the church’s own well-documented teachings. These revisionist declarations ignore the past.
Claiming that “most [Mormons] were opposed to slavery” misrepresents early Mormon beliefs and history. It also undermines the gravity of real abolitionist efforts elsewhere by appropriating moral credit that the early LDS Church did not earn at that time. If the modern church wants to acknowledge past persecution, it must do so honestly and with historical accuracy, not by reframing complex events into tidy narratives of righteous suffering.
Only by reckoning honestly with this full history, rather than promoting a sanitized version of it, can the church and its members begin to understand the real roots of the tensions it faced and the ongoing challenges of race and reconciliation within its walls today. Sadly, church leadership continues to spin narratives to present the church (and themselves) as morally exemplary.
The complex and uncomfortable truths about the early church’s teachings on Native Americans and slavery show that Mormon history is not immune from the biases and systems of oppression that shaped 19th-century America. While modern leaders may now distance the church from racism and claim a legacy of moral clarity, history reveals contradictions, theological justifications for inequality, and harmful narratives that have had lasting effects. For many, this historical awareness can trigger a crisis of faith—but it can also open the door to deeper understanding, accountability, and growth.
If you’ve wrestled with these issues or others like them in your own journey, whether you’ve reconciled your beliefs or found peace by stepping away, your story matters. Sharing your experience can bring healing to yourself and offer solidarity to others who are questioning. Join the growing community at wasmormon.org and contribute your voice to a collective movement toward truth, transparency, and compassion. When we speak our truth, we reclaim our stories from silence and help shape a better, more honest future.
More reading:
- Brigham Young’s Racist Remarks on Slaves, Seed, and Priesthood Doctrines
- Standing Against Racism?
- Mormon Church Whitewashes Racist History in Essay
- Mormon Leadership Dismisses Racist Doctrines as Folklore
- President Oaks Fibbing For The Lord Again – Prompt and Public Disavowal of Racism?
- Racist Brigham Young
- Lilburn Boggs’ Extermination Order and Mormon War
- The Other Mormon Extermination Order, from Brigham Young against the Timpanogos People
- Racism and Victim Blaming From God’s Anointed
- The Lowry Nelson Letters and Racist Mormon Doctrine
- Elijah Able, Early Black Mormon Received Priesthood via Joseph Smith
- Did Mormons OPPOSE Slavery? | The TRUTH & Quentin L. Cook | Nemo the Mormon