Russell W. Stevenson is the author of For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013.
In October of last year, Deseret Book published Christopher Columbus: A Man Among the Gentiles by Clark B. Hinckley. In the Mormon tradition, Columbus enjoys nothing short of a singular divine mandate as the man who made it possible for native peoples to receive the gospel message. Pro-Columbus Mormons draw freely on 1 Nephi 13, a passage of scripture believed to prophesy of Columbus as the “man among the Gentiles” destined to bring Christianity to the “Lamanites.”
Joseph Smith drew on a Columbus anecdote in one of his sermons, but there is nothing in the documentary record binding Joseph Smith in any special way. In 1854, Orson Hyde cast Columbus as an intrepid, dogged man of God, “trammeled by poverty and by an unpopular cause,” even as his “persevering and unyielding heart would not allow an obstacle in his way too great for him to overcome.” With the help of Moroni—himself the “Prince of America”—Columbus ushered in the era of the United States which has “increased, flourished, like the study oak by the rivers of water.” In 1879, Orson Pratt identified the “man among the Gentiles” as Christopher Columbus in a footnote to 1 Nephi 13. Many grew up accepting similar assumptions uncritically. But even with all this, no official statement identifies Columbus as the man envisioned in the Book of Mormon text. A tradition it is, indeed.
And then there are the serious moral questions that Columbus’s personal character raises. His moral deficits are well-known—and deserve to be illuminated under a hot light of scrutiny. He supported the exploitation of the Indies for the sake of monetary gain alongside the Christianizing mission. Moreover, he promoted slavery as an entirely legitimate means of labor–documentable realities that need no explication. And we might as well dispense with the with the badly misused criticism that we “not apply 21st-century standards to 15th-century lives.”
The charge of “presentism” (the use of our standards to criticize actions in the past) applies when there were not serious and well-known voices giving alternative points of view. But did the Columbian Conquest go uncontested? Did no one attempt to stop him from the rank exploitation of the natives? On the contrary, Columbus’s efforts to exploit the Taino peoples of the Caribbean sparked a high-profile debate within the circles of the Spanish royalty, one that lasted for generations. Leading the anti-Columbian opposition was a former confidante, Bartolome De Las Casas. Casas, a Spanish friar, had traveled to the Spanish colonies and saw the product of the encomienda, the system of native servitude enforced by Spanish authorities. The encomienda amounted to little more than chattel slavery.
His travels to the Indies transformed the former colonizer. When Casas saw the horrors that the encomienda brought to the natives, he converted from the Conquest’s greatest friend to one of its most passionate and powerful foes In 1542, he wrote A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, a scathing chastisement of Spanish policies in their newly-discovered Caribbean colonies. Indigenous peoples were creations of God, he declared, and deserved humane treatment (and Christianity, to be sure) at the hands of the Spanish. Columbus had been reckless in his choice of men to oversee the colonization project; Columbus, he charged, “requested that the King pardon. . .criminals committed for homicide, assault, and other offenses.”
Casas enjoyed a close relationship with the Queen. He delivered speech after speech, exhorting Spaniards to acknowledge the consequences of conquest on indigenous peoples, to acknowledge that their efforts to bring Christianity had only brought death. “The Spaniards first assaulted the innocent Sheep,” he wrote, “like most cruel Tygers [sic], Wolves, and Lions hunger-starv’d.” They were guilty of “horrid crimes” and “inexpressible Outrages” which he was not fully capable of putting to print. He hoped only that “all true Christians and moral Men throughout the whole World” would listen. Worse, they were motivated by religious zeal: “so transported with Zeal and Furvor in exercise of Ecclesiastical Sacraments and Divine Service, that the very Religioso’s themselves, stand in need of the greatest and most signal patience” to endure them. Casas promoted Christianization and with a passion as deep as his hatred of the encomienda, but it needed to be done as God intended—with a soft hand. Indeed, Casas released the natives he held under the encomienda. A close friend and biographer observed that Casas “had taken a new road in life” and “would never take one step backwards.”
De Las Casas faced strong interests; even the Bishop of Burgos found Las Casas motive of converting—rather than exploiting—the Indians to be less than convincing, a reality that Casas “was astounded” to learn. He was an intimate with the most powerful men and women in the Spanish royalty. He called upon the King to dismantle the encomienda system, lest the Spanish nation fall under the collective judgment of God. “I hope that the Lord helps me,” he wrote, “yet if I am not successful, I will have done my duty as a Christian.” De Las Casas read his account of the horrors for hours after hours gruesome detail before the Valladolid council convened by Charles. “And I saw these things,” he kept telling his listeners. So passionate was he that he “would downright sputter” when in the throes of speaking of the conquistadores’ evils. In 1542, De Las Casas convinced persuaded Charles V to pass the New Laws, legislation that abolished the harshest aspects of the encomienda system. Natives could no longer be compelled to work under Spanish colonists and would receive a fare wage for their labors.
The colonizers had their own supporters, of course. Juan Gines de Sepulvida, a humanist–and secularly-inclined scholar of the time, insisted that Casas was all too optimistic about the capacity of the natives to be Christianized. Indeed, Sepulvida argued, Columbus was right: the natives were “natural slaves.” But neither was Casas alone. Dominican friars had long been echoing the same refrain. Tear down the encomienda. Give the land back to the natives. Casas himself had drawn his inspiration from a fellow friar, Antonio De Montesinos, declared that the Spanish colonists were “in mortal sin” and “live and die for the cruelty and tyranny which you inflict on these innocent people” Francisco de Vitora argued that the “the aborigines undoubtedly had true dominion in both public and private matters, just like Christians, and that neither their princes nor private persons could be despoiled of their property on the ground of their not being true owners.”
In 1564, two years prior to his death De Las Casas became increasingly convinced of his divine calling to be an advocate for native peoples: “All that the Spaniards perpetrated against those [Indian] peoples, the robbery, the killing, the usurpation of property and jurisdiction, from kings and lords and lands and realms, the theft of things on a boundless scale and the horrible cruelties that went with that—all this was in violation of the whole natural, and a terrible blot in the name of Christ and the Christian faith.” God would “pour out His fury and anger on Spain for those damnable, rotten, infamous deeds done so unjustly, so tyrannically, so barbarously to those people, against those people. For the whole of Spain has shared in the blood-soaked riches, some a little, some a lot, but all shared in goods that were ill-gotten, wickedly taken with violence and genocide—and all must pay unless Spain does a mighty penance.”
And when did Columbus express this kind of commitment to the welfare of native peoples? At what point did Columbus express the interests of the underprivileged in a way that could compare to De Las Casas and others? Can we in good conscience celebrate Columbus’s accomplishments when we have a far more honorable hero in men such as Casas?
Bartolome De Las Casas
We should not place De Las Casas on too high a pedestal. His census enumeration placing the Hispaniola population at three million was a vast overstatement. He spoke poorly of the natives as well, describing their tempers as being “imbecile and unequal-balanced.” He considered them degraded and badly in need of the light of a foreign religious system. To stop native slavery in the Indies, he endorsed the use of African slavery to replace it—though Casas came to realize its evils as well, later observing that “the cleric…regretted the advice he gave the king on this matter.” Casas refused to go easy on himself, not believing that “his ignorance and his good intentions would excuse him before the judgment seat of God.”
Though a minor point, as William Blake has observed, we can see the universe “in a grain of sand.” The Prophet Joseph Smith noted that “a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm.” The exact identity of the “man among the Gentiles” must necessarily remain a literary mystery. It is a point of historical curiosity that has virtually little bearing on who we are. What is salient is how Latter-day Saints succumb so easily to the allure of the patriotic Columbian narrative, that of the explorer patriot-Saint who laid the establishment for Mormonism centuries later. Whether or not Columbus was in fact the “man among the Gentiles,” Latter-day Saints would do well to acknowledge the moral price paid when they wed themselves to the rise of Western imperialism and Atlantic slavery, both of which De Las Casas and Montesinos condemned and committed their entire lives to dismantling.
So why do the Saints write biographies of Christopher Columbus rather than Bartolome De Las Casas? Tradition, perhaps, but there is little more to it. In the Book of Mormon, Jacob teaches that it is the duty of believers in Christianity to “liberate the captive.” Columbus had no such interests, preferring instead to initiate an Atlantic system of chattel slavery that would endure for over 300 years. Whatever Casas’ demerits, he deserves memorialization as a powerful voice who successfully protected indigenous peoples against the system of exploitation that Columbus helped to design.
I do not believe there is anything malicious about the Saints’ celebration of the Columbian project. But the reality is that we have read into the 1 Nephi 13 text assumptions that are not justified, and the consequences of those assumptions are real for a faith that increasingly is moving to regions once colonized by European powers. And scriptural interpretation aside, if I am going to have my children learn moral lessons from a Spanish explorer, it will be from Bartolome De Las Casas, not from Columbus.
Russell Stevenson
Russell Stevenson is an independent researcher who also moonlights as an instructor at Salt Lake Community College. He has been studying Mormon history online and in the archives for nearly twenty years. He learned his first lesson of historical analysis from his father: if you're going to drink water from a river, drink it from the source, not after all the cows have waded in it.
All posts by Russell Stevenson
Thanks for this post. I have long been an advocate of Las Casa over Columbus. It has never made sense to me that God would use such an evil greedy and pridful man to do his work when there were other men obviously more humane and humble than Columbus helping the first nations. I have been taking a Book of Mormon class in our stake this year and it has amazed me how quick and willing the teachers and the students are to perpetuate myths that we have developed around the Book of Mormon such as Columbus and yet refuse to look at any real ad actual evidence that substantially points to a location of Book of Mormon geography.
I have read this chapter many times and I find it hard to believe that any Catholic Spaniard fits the description Nephi gives in his vision. Far more likely to me is King James’ voyages – the Mayflower landed only 400 miles from the hill Cumorah and the people who came to the US from England fit Nephi’s description far better than the Spanish colonization of the central and south American continents. Also while a deeply flawed individual, I have a far easier time believing the spirit of God could rest on King James (who had just published the Bible in English) rather than a killer like Columbus and his ilk. If Mormons weren’t such monarchophobes I think James would have gotten his due in Nephi’s dream.
Great article Russell! A lot of history I didn know.
What of the vision Wilford Woodruff received in the St. George temple, where Columbus was one of those present to receive their temple ordinances? Three men were ordained vicariously as high priests: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this justifies Columbus’ actions, but it is something to consider.
Thanks for this. One of my biggest pet peeves with members is their incredibly myopic view of history. Great post!
Chris:
As far as I’m concerned, that only demonstrates that Woodruff believed Columbus to be one of the “eminent men” of human history. It certainly does not compel us to identify the “man among the gentiles” as Columbus.
I am, of course, glad that temple work was made available to him in the same way that I’m glad it’s made available to most people. But ultimately, if a man is ordained as a high priest (especially vicariously), is that a litmus test of one’s righteousness?
Excellent article! Now I need to study De Las Casas, I knew there had to be alternatives to the Columbus narrative.
Great article, with some very salient points. I think Columbus is still the best fit for the “man among the Gentiles” of 1 Nephi 13:12, but that doesn’t mean that he was an upstanding moral character. The main qualifying factor for identifying “the man” is that he’s the first of a list of Gentiles connected with the wrath of God being visited on the Lamanite descendants (1 Nephi 13:11). The wrath of God often involves slavery/bondage and plagues, both of which correlate with the fate of the indigenous population. However, it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished–therefore, if Columbus fulfilled the role of being the “man among the Gentiles” and was an instrument in punishing the indigenous population, then his actions were deplorable and not worth celebrating.
The author falls into the same trap of so many academics looking to present some groundbreaking new interpretation of history. He goes to great lengths trying to convince the reader that the “man among the Gentiles” is less likely Columbus and more likely Las Casas. How can this author, who in previous writings defends that a man may be inspired of God in one thing without all of his other teachings or actions inspired by God (i.e. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, etc.), can not see that Nephi’s vision of the “Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land” was of Christopher Columbus, even if Columbus acted in other ways uninspired? Ultimately, Nephi’s vision teaches us only that God inspired Columbus to come to the New World. As Latter-day Saints, we know how the discovery of the New World by European Christians led to the Restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith. Is it not appropriate, therefore, to celebrate Columbus Day for what Nephi tells us about him, and nothing more?
Building Your Tabernacle Oct 1992 General Conference. Pres Hinckley says speaking of 1 Ne 13:12 "We interpret that to refer to Columbus". I wonder if that would help shed light on the thought that the church has never identified that verse as relating to Columbus. Hope this helps clear things up a bit.
One other great comment referring to Columbus and the Founding Fathers that I like comes from Ezra Taft Benson. He says speaking of Columbus and the Founding Fathers "When one casts doubts about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe they will have to answer to the God of Heaven for it."
Attractive information .
Hi Greg:
In reference to your citation from President Hinckley, I deeply value President Hinckley’s contributions. I gladly sustained him as President of the Church.
However, one talk does not doctrine make. Still, I do not argue definitively that Casas the man mentioned (as much as I would like that to be the case). I only argue that Casas deserves more of our accolades than Columbus.
Daniel S,
It’s not just the “members” with myopic views; many general Authorities have myopic views of history and proudly proclaim from the pulpit and through Church resources that their view is the gospel and doctrine. Growing up in the 70’s and early 80’s, I remember pamphlets we distributed as missionaries that proclaimed Columbus was the man from the Book of Mormon, pamphlets that seemed “official” at the time. Such is Mormonism, an undefined doctrine that morphs here and there, like pinning green jello to the wall, we’ve heard that one so many times.
DJB:
“How can this author, who in previous writings defends that a man may be inspired of God in one thing without all of his other teachings or actions inspired by God (i.e. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, etc.), can not see that Nephi’s vision of the “Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land” was of Christopher Columbus, even if Columbus acted in other ways uninspired?”
I’m afraid you have made more than a few (incorrect) assumptions about the body of my work. Indeed, the connection you draw between Joseph Smith/Brigham Young and Christopher Columbus is a connection that spans several centuries and an ocean–the only similarity they share is that, in the popular “Mormon mind,” they all enjoy some measure of inspiration. And if this is the only question we ask–are they inspired–we miss the forest for our looking at the air in the forest. We miss what we can see as we try to focus on what we cannot.
To suppose that the accomplishments–and the sins–of Joseph Smith or even Brigham Young have anything more than the most abstract, theoretical similarity is absurd. Their theological accomplishments are vastly different. Their “temporal” accomplishments are worlds apart. Beyond a claim to “inspiration” (and what does that mean, exactly?), Columbus and JS/BY et al. have, essentially, nothing in common. So, to say that believing in one person’s inspiration can, in any way, lead to belief in the other’s, is quite the non-sequitur.
So, if we are going to insist on a Columbian interpretation, let’s do so fully conscious of the options before us and of the moral implications of that choice. And surely, all can see that the Mormon community has not adopted this interpretation grudgingly but eagerly. According to most LDS discourse, this is no Cyrus of Persia who happened to fall into God’s plan but rather, a figure whom we have upheld as a figure worthy of our emulation. And, if Columbus is worthy of our emulation, then we need to be open to allowing for slave traders, Aztec despots, and tyrants to be worthy of our emulation.
I, for one, will not go down that road.
The only scriptural view of Columbus comes from Nephi “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” (1 Ne. 13:12.)
There are statements from apostles and prophets (including Hinckley and Romney) in our day “interpreting” that scripture to mean Columbus. And we have Pres Woodruff ensuring the temple work (and ordination to High Priest) was done for Columbus and that he was included in the group of “eminent [men]”. If this is enough to define doctrine so be it.
And now we have several historians giving a less than ‘nice’ view of Columbus, his behaviour and attitudes. And seemingly valid observations of a man who, if he did these things today, would be a vile criminal.
If Columbus was the man Nephi saw, so what? If he wasn’t then some other man fulfilled the Lord’s purposes. Some question…
– If he was, did his journey to the America’s help bring about the Lord’s purposes? Yes.
– Did he also do some terrible things? It seems like.
– Has he had the opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel while in the spirit realm, if we can believe Pres Woodruff then he has.
– Are people today justified in not honouring him because of his atrocities, it would seem so.
– Is he to blame for all atrocities since committed on the native Americans of both hemispheres since? Nope that is the fault of the respective governments, armies and greedy people, blame them.
– Are we as Latter-day Saints justified in condemning him? I wont, I am too busy working out my own salvation.
– Is this a glib treatment of what is a very well researched and put together paper? Its not intended to be, but it also tries to put things into a perspective of worrying about things we can change, and move on from things we cant.
Bartolome De Las Casas works for me.
This seems a particularly strained argument from many vantage points. I know of no one who suggests that the early Spanish colonizers of the New World were saintly in any way, but it is disingenuous to attribute all of their actions to Columbus. Columbus was far from perfect, and certainly failed to provide either the moral or temporal leadership required to avoid the devastating effects of European contact with Native Americans. Yet one wonders if anyone would have been capable of preventing the events that unfolded in the New World following 1482. Las Casas himself opined that even “the Archangel Gabriel would have been hard put to govern people as greedy, selfish, and egotistical as the early settlers of Hispaniola.” Oviedo noted in 1535 that any early governor of Hispaniola, “to succeed, must be superhuman.” Columbus successors as governors of Hispaniola were extraordinarily cruel, but to pin their actions and attitudes on Columbus is simply poor logic and poor scholarship. Columbus was no Saint, but neither was he the greedy and murderous figure popularized in current myth. It is of note that while Columbus did approve the capture and shipment of slaves to Spain on three occasions in accordance with standard Spanish practices in both Castile and the Canary Islands, Columbus himself, unlike Las Casas, never owned slaves. It is also worth noting that Las Casas did not give up his slaves and begin to work in defence of the Native Americans until 1515, nine years after Columbus’s death. Regarding Columbus, Las Casas wrote, “the divine and great Master chose, among all the sons of Adam that in our times were upon the earth, that illustrious and great Columbus” for the task of unlocking the gates of the Ocean Sea and bringing a knowledge of the New World to the Old. If one is hold Las Casas up an example of good behaviour and trustworthiness, one is obliged to accept his view of Columbus as a man chose of God.
With regard to the connection between 1 Nephi 13:12 and Columbus, the documentation is extensive. Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Orson Hyde, Joseph F. Smith, Orson F. Whitney, John A. Widtsoe, Mark E. Petersen, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Gordon B. Hinckley have all affirmed that Columbus was divinely inspired. Presidents Benson and Hinckley affirmatively stated that 1 Nephi 13:12 refers to Columbus. The suggestion that this verse does not refer to Columbus is simply contrary to the statements of multiple prophets.
Was Columbus perfect? No. But was he evil? Certainly not. There is much we don’t know about Columbus and much we may question, but there is little doubt, if one accepts the scriptures and the words of living prophets, that he was divinely chosen and inspired to do one great thing: open up a world that had been hidden from the rest of the world for millennia, and that in so doing he made possible the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and Restoration of the Gospel.
Greetings, Clark.
My genuine apologies for this profoundly belated response. As I hope you can imagine, one does, eventually, stop following the comment thread. And given the substance of your remarks, your comment does in fact merit a response.
Undoubtedly, Columbus was, on the main, a man of his time–but only just so, and certainly, not without some resistance. On the matter of slavery, a contrast/comparison between Columbus and Casas is in order.
It’s a bit too mild to say that Columbus merely “approved” of slavery; it was, as the records show, foremost on his mind. “Your Highness,” he wrote to Isabel and Ferdinand, “can take all [the Indians] to Castile or keep them enslaved on the island, because 50 men could control them all.” Indeed, he “load[ed] the ships which came from Castile with slaves, and send them to sell in the islands of the Canaries, the Azores, and Cabo Verde.”
And how does this compare to Las Casas? Whereas Columbus never once recognized the evil of his complicity in the trade (which was extensive and foundational), Casas recognized his sin and spoke out against it–with painful self-interrogation. As you note, he once owned slaves. And as my post notes, he gave it up with must confession and repentance, not unlike John Newton. And given how common it was, I have to commend Casas for that. But let’s not whitewash what colonialism meant to Columbus and, at one time, to Casas: it meant exploitation and the business end of colonialism.
To a broader question, did Casas see Columbus as being inspired of God to lead the way to discovering the new world? That’s not as easy to answer. That Casas believed in the Christianizing mission is clear enough from the records. And did Columbus play a role in bringing Christianity to the indigenous peoples of the region? Casas certainly thought so. Yet even then, Casas acknowledged that Columbus was “at the beginning of the ill usage inflicted upon them.” Moreover, Casas concluded (and here’s where theology becomes relevant), Casas claimed that Columbus was in fact ignorant of his own intentions in regard to the indigenous peoples:
“I do not doubt that if the Admiral had believed there would succeed such pernicious detriment as did succeed, and had known as much of the primary and secondary conclusions of natural and divine right as he knew of cosmography and other human doctrines, he would never have dared to introduce or establish a thing which was to produce such calamitous evils; for no one can say that he was not a good and Christian man.” Even as Casas acknowledges him to be a good Christian man, he also acknowledges that his religiosity is largely irrelevant. Casas in fact does hold Columbus to be at least somewhat responsible for the string of evils that took place following Columbus’s arrival. His evils are not the same as others, to be sure. But his evils of playing to the crown, of following “common opinion” are evils that Casas saw as worthy of pointing out. So we can take Casas at his word on all counts. Casas, like others since then, recognized the profound evil of which Columbus was a part.
But Columbus did not. And that matters. So whatever moral good came about from Columbus’ exploits, I think it’s safe to say that from a humanitarian perspective, Casas certainly did far, far more. And if I were compelled to choose a conquistador for my children to exemplify, I would, however reluctantly, choose the one who repented rather than the one who did not.
Comment
Clark Hinckley,
Was Columbia evil? Certainly not? Okay…
Please explain the indigenous women that were raped. Indigenous girls as young as ten sold as sex slaved to Columbus’ men. Were the Indigenous people that evil that God would be okay with the treatment that Columbus, God’s chosen “Gentile” allowed towards them? I just don’t get it…and I’m LDS!
There is, in fact, a book written by an LDS author which attempts to present a historically accurate account of what happened. The research which went into this novel included readings of translations of primary documents (Columbus, de las Casas) and represents what I believe to be a very balanced view: that Columbus was inspired to journey to the Americas, but that he fell away from his closeness to the Spirit after becoming motivated by greed.
(I am not the author of this book, but I know her personally)
https://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Peace-Conquest-Historical-Chronicles-ebook/dp/B00BF69YJQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476116224&sr=8-1&keywords=stolen+peace