Joseph Smith Lamanites (2) (1)

Race and Representation in Latter-day Saint Art

Although text has been the primary medium of communication in the restored gospel, there are exciting ways in which fresh visual depictions can expand our understanding and appreciation—including in sensitive areas like race and gender.

As art historians researching the art and visual culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the broader Latter-day Saint world, we see benefits to more scholarly discourse on race in art within the Church and its culture. The last decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in scholarship exploring race in historical and contemporary Mormonism. Yet much work remains to be done in addressing the role of images in constructing and promulgating Latter-day Saint views on race and ethnicity. Perhaps the critical importance of texts in the Church has overshadowed the communicative power of images. Studying a religion so centrally defined through written words, it’s easy to assume that images are always accessories rather than central to creating meaning—i.e. seeing images simply as illustrations. The naturalistic style typical of Latter-day Saint art (especially in the Church’s first hundred years) doesn’t help, either. Many artists invite us to see their polished, realistic works as straightforward representations of reality, not as subjective visions mediated through religious, cultural, and ideological perspectives.

A quick study of just one example suggests how much is missing when images are treated simply as illustrations—and the potential insights images offer into Latter-day Saints’ evolving understanding of race. In 1844, Samuel Brannan engaged the H. N. Robinson Lithography Company to mass-produce an image drawn by Edward Williams Clay depicting Joseph Smith speaking to a group of Native Americans (depicted in the featured image of this article above). The image is more than just a representation of figures who happen to possess particular racial identities. It is an argument about race, employing visual rhetoric to advance specific perspectives about embodied identity in the social context in which it was produced.

For instance, Brannan’s lithograph affirms that the Book of Mormon was a record of the ancestors of Native Americans—Joseph Smith holds a prominently labeled copy at his side. Many early Latter-day Saints were excited by his prophecy that Native Americans would reawaken to their alleged Lamanite identities and join the Latter-day Saint millenarian project. Beyond what it reveals about the Latter-day Saints’ teachings about Lamanites in that period, the lithograph also helps illuminate how this theology intertwined with contemporary understanding in the faith about racial difference. The Native figures are derived from the artist’s imagination rather than observation, but the stereotype they represent is not the “hostile savage” threatening settlement (then ascendant in post-Jacksonian America), but the earlier vision of the “noble savage.” The figures’ regal bearing, elegant ornamentation, and Roman-nosed profiles associate them with the visual tradition of Native Americans as embodying the virtues of an enlightened, natural existence. Many Latter-day Saint viewers were willing, especially in the era before the settlement of Utah, to imagine Native Americans as potential allies rather than opponents. The lithograph captures the optimistic belief that Native people across the continent would join the Latter-day Saint world—the mountains in the background set the image much further west than Nauvoo.

How should we address historical artworks that carry spiritual significance to many Latter-day Saints, but may have been perpetuated or been influenced by attitudes of white superiority?

Yet the lithograph also hints at the racial inequities that would ultimately undercut the Latter-day Saints’ efforts to convert Indigenous Peoples. The artist did not put Smith and his Native listeners on equal footing. Instead, the prophet towers over them while they sit at his feet. Emanating from a world in which white Americans struggled to imagine true parity between Native Americans and themselves, the image takes for granted that civilizing and moralizing knowledge flowed in only one direction. This was compounded for nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint viewers by the understanding that “Lamanites” were degraded remnants of an Israelite civilization; consistently, they equated “redemption” not with the flowering of Native cultural expression or political power, but with assimilation into Church culture and society.

Brannan’s lithograph is not particularly revealing as an illustration of history—it’s an imagined scene generalizing multiple events by an artist who wasn’t present and hadn’t ever seen any of the participants. But when studied as a cultural document, the image offers significant insight into the religious and social perspectives of early Latter-day Saints. This is only one short case study—and much more could be said about this single artwork. But as this example suggests, images offer enormous potential for increasing our understanding of Latter-day Saint views on race. 

Recent scholarship on nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint art and visual culture reveals how these images not only documented but also actively participated in Latter-day Saint colonial expansion. Much more work remains to be done.  Although there is some scholarship devoted to the intersections of Latter-day Saint culture and race in twentieth and twenty-first-century artworks, this has been neither an extensive nor a sustained enterprise. A deeper analysis of the representation of Native Americans in the paintings of Arnold Friberg and Minerva Teichert, for example, may reveal additional colonialist elements in early Latter-day Saint cultural practices. The recent explosion of interest in depicting the feminine divine in Latter-day Saint art, and in particular Heavenly Mother is also worth noting—reflecting a global church clearly capacious enough to produce images that challenge the long-time Latter-day Saint visual rhetoric that has predominantly represented white subjects. Works by Richard Lasisi Olagunju, Melissa Tshikamba, Kwani Povi Winder, and others point to new and important directions in the contemporary age.

Hence, we are launching an edited volume on race and representation in Latter-day Saint art because existing scholarship only just begins to scratch the surface. There are numerous other topics ripe for exploration: how have Latter-day Saints envisioned Lamanites in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries? How did images promote or challenge Latter-day Saints’ shifting understanding of people of African descent, before, during, or after the “priesthood ban”? How are international members of the Church creating images to represent this vivid diversity in the increasingly global Church? How have Black and Indigenous Latter-day Saints of color fashioned self-representations that challenge racist stereotypes that may remain among some? And how should we address historical artworks that carry spiritual significance to many Latter-day Saints, but may have been perpetuated or been influenced by attitudes of white superiority?  We invite scholars of all disciplines and backgrounds to propose essays on these or any other topics related to race in Latter-day Saint visual culture in the hope that more critical discussion will help bring about a better understanding.

About the authors

Nathan Rees

Nathan Rees is a professor of art history at the University of West Georgia focusing on the intersection of race and religion. He also serves as a curator at the Sacred Harp Museum. He has a PhD in art history from the University of Maryland. [email protected]

Heather Belnap

Heather Belnap is an Art History & Women's Studies Professor at BYU and the Director of BYU European Studies. She has a Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. [email protected]
On Key

You Might Also Like

Reaching for a Zion Beyond Partisan Warfare

It’s important to raise our voices to defend truth. But especially in confusing and difficult moments, it’s also important to come together to seek a better understanding of the full truth of a matter.

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to