Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Benji

Brigham Young and extreme racism

Recommended Posts

correction prophets are fallible prophecy is not.

Actually, I think prophecy is as fallible as astrology. It works the same way with the same kind of track record.

Edgar Cayce make more predictions that came true than JS.

The trick is to use a lot of weasle words and conditionals. Also, try to put things in the indefinite future. That way anything that doesn't happen can be said to still be in the future. It is better to say "before this generation passes away" than to say "within 56 years" (JS made that mistake once). One can always argue over what a generation is.

Failed prophecies

Share this post


Link to post

what seems clear God is racist or that we don't change with the changing revelations? I agree that racism is wrong. I also know that manking has had flip floppy ideas on this subject throughout history and not just for black folks. Where I live they did not accept spanish or italians till after WW1 to live within city boundaries. The Eastern Europeans were discriminated against as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Growing up in America makes it awfully hard to not have some racist beliefs. We simply process things in racial terms alot of the times.

I think part of dealing with racism is letting be exposed. I got cut off by a Latino driver the other day-it really made me mad. The first thought in my head? "Stupid Mexican." The punchline? I'm half Mexican. It sorta shocked me because it was reflexive.

Again, racist isn't the guy with a rope and the white hood. Racist can simply refer to processing your environment and outlook in racial terms, which we do alot of the times. Look at the "looting" vs. "finding food" captions getting alot of talk this week in terms of race....it happens, it's very insidious.

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann said:

which is why this is such a joyful topic for illiterate antis.

Pahoran said:

All you have ever done is unthinkingly swallow the tiny little selection of prooftexts culled from its pages and published on anti-Mormon hate sites.

Pahoran also said:

And demonstrates your "extreme ignorance."

And another gem from Pahoran:

Someone who knows as little as you do really needs to cultivate a little more humility.

And back to Juliann:

Tarski, no one in their right mind would use that particular lecture from BY if they had read the Jod.

You guys do so much attacking peoples character that I forget what the topic of the post was. Yet I still have yet to see either of you point out what "reading this one in context" does to eliminate that particular quote.

I only wish Pahoran would have used his flawed anti mormon logic on me, because I HAVE read that and other quotes in context and still disagree with his conclusions....

Share this post


Link to post
How noble and enlightened of you.  I am sure much of what you think is the cat's meow today will be scorned tomorrow.

So you are still a racist? You believe you are of a more righteous race than others? You probably believe the absurdity of Africans actually being decedents of Cain? And why should I take anything you say seriously?

You shouldn't take anything I say seriously. Just keep coming up with these really great rebuttals. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Of course, there's this one small detail: Brigham is explaining from the pulpit in the tabernacle of the Lord what the LAW OF GOD is.

All arguments falling back on Brigham's personal fallibility and his personal racist beliefs common of the day are all nonsense! Brigham isn't giving us a secret about his personal views people...he's explaining the LAW OF GOD.

So are we gonna get more of the same, Clintonesque weasel arguments explaining that when the PROPHET of GOD stands at the PULPIT and EXPLAINS THE LAW OF GOD and the duration of the law (ALWAYS) --- well this shouldn't count for anything more than Brigham's personal favorite number or color. We should take his sermon with a wee grain of salt...coincidentally, the sermon is entirely UNACCAPTABLE by today's standards. That wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

Oh, and Pahoran, I have the entire 26 volume set of the Journal of Discourses at my fingertips. Are you implying that the Journal of Discourses does NOT contain racist sermons spoken by Brigham Young, or that Brigham Young simply never gave racist sermons, or that proof the Journal of Discourses ever existed, or that this plainly stated, deplorable racist paragraph could possibly be misinterpreted without pages of "context" ---- or all of the above?

Share this post


Link to post
You guys do so much attacking peoples character that I forget what the topic of the post was. Yet I still have yet to see either of you point out what "reading this one in context" does to eliminate that particular quote.

I only wish Pahoran would have used his flawed anti mormon logic on me, because I HAVE read that and other quotes in context and still disagree with his conclusions....

Another resounding rebuttal. ZZZZZzzzzzzzz

Share this post


Link to post

Also, since we can excuse the 19th century prophets for these types of comments, are we to assume that since these same thoughts were going around in book of mormon times that it was ok in that time period as well? Or are we going to admit that the Book of Mormon was 19th century fiction that held 19th century views?

Share this post


Link to post

The trick is to use a lot of weasle words and conditionals. Also, try to put things in the indefinite future. That way anything that doesn't happen can be said to still be in the future. It is better to say "before this generation passes away" than to say "within 56 years" (JS made that mistake once). One can always argue over what a generation is.

This is the best trick. Just go completely off-topic when you realize you have been caught with your double standards down. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Besides Where I m afrom we have had a very different history then americans did. I am guessing too that early leaders of the Church not american, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon might have had different views than those of their american counterparts. Besides of which I don't believe we know the real reasons why the blacks were denied the priesthood, It may have been because the whites were not ready to accept them yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, and Pahoran, I have the entire 26 volume set of the Journal of Discourses at my fingertips. Are you implying that the Journal of Discourses does NOT contain racist sermons spoken by Brigham Young, or that Brigham Young simply never gave racist sermons, or that proof the Journal of Discourses ever existed, or that this plainly stated, deplorable racist paragraph could possibly be misinterpreted without pages of "context" ---- or all of the above?

And another really convincing rebuttal!

I'm looking really really hard and I haven't seen one poster "imply" anything. We are straight up proclaiming that BY came up with some real embarrassing goose eggs. Your problem is that there are libraries filled with research on race theory, race relations and the abysmal records of all of society. BY pales in comparison no matter how putrid some of his comments sound to us now.

Share this post


Link to post
Also, since we can excuse the 19th century prophets for these types of comments, are we to assume that since these same thoughts were going around in book of mormon times that it was ok in that time period as well? Or are we going to admit that the Book of Mormon was 19th century fiction that held 19th century views?

Yes! Let's run to the BOM in a thread about Brigham Young when we have been caught with our double standards down!

Share this post


Link to post

And those who are overweeningly proud of not being racist are just as likely to be bigoted on some other topic.

Ideology, for example; or perhaps religion.

Regards,

Pahoran

1) I am not particularly proud of not being a racist. It comes with education and information. Presumably the best source of information on these matters is God. Well I am not a prophet but somehow I still got enough information to largely avoid racism. Even if I had some racist thoughts (which I don't) I still would have enough wisdom to not actively teach it in church or in my writings.

2) Your use of the "bigotted" is reaching and inappropriate. I am no more bigotted against Mormons than you are against the scientologists or moonies.

Lets keep things in perspective here. We are talking about racism couched and codified in religious terms and statements about curses.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm looking really really hard and I haven't seen one poster "imply" anything. We are straight up proclaiming that BY came up with some real embarrassing goose eggs. Your problem is that there are libraries filled with research on race theory, race relations and the abysmal records of all of society. BY pales in comparison no matter how putrid some of his comments sound to us now.

But the racism in Mormonism comes from more than just Brigham and his putrid comments.

From my earlier post:

These racist beliefs were taught for many years in the Mormon church as standard doctrine. Consider the following from Mormon Doctrine published in 1966:

"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned

Share this post


Link to post

Observer wrote:

Of course, there's this one small detail: Brigham is explaining from the pulpit in the tabernacle of the Lord what the LAW OF GOD is.

All arguments falling back on Brigham's personal fallibility and his personal racist beliefs common of the day are all nonsense! Brigham isn't giving us a secret about his personal views people...he's explaining the LAW OF GOD.

So are we gonna get more of the same, Clintonesque weasel arguments explaining that when the PROPHET of GOD stands at the PULPIT and EXPLAINS THE LAW OF GOD and the duration of the law (ALWAYS) --- well this shouldn't count for anything more than Brigham's personal favorite number or color. We should take his sermon with a wee grain of salt...coincidentally, the sermon is entirely UNACCAPTABLE by today's standards. That wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

Oh, and Pahoran, I have the entire 26 volume set of the Journal of Discourses at my fingertips. Are you implying that the Journal of Discourses does NOT contain racist sermons spoken by Brigham Young, or that Brigham Young simply never gave racist sermons, or that proof the Journal of Discourses ever existed, or that this plainly stated, deplorable racist paragraph could possibly be misinterpreted without pages of "context" ---- or all of the above?

Having read all of the posts, this position is by far the strongest and most relevant issue at hand. Of course I am a very biased ex-mormon. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann,

I will make this one more on topic for you:

I'm looking really really hard and I haven't seen one poster "imply" anything.

You are right, they didn't imply, they STATED

Tanyan

Here we go again !. Why is not the entire previous events leading up to this statement [Out of context !] given ?.

Deborah

Again there is lack of understanding and context. 

Try again chief, or just go back to calling everything a double standard and take some more character shots....

Share this post


Link to post

Tarski-this has nothing to do with BY for me personally at all. But you really don't think you are touched by racial processing at all? I mean, I mentioned awhile back as someone who is brown, who has experienced really bigotted behavior in a number of settings, considers myself educated, and is a self acknowledged bed wetting liberal, I've had a couple "whoa, need to think about what I just thought" moments. I don't think we can be untouched by how race is dealt with in our society really. Regardless of education, it's more insidious in nature than conscious schooling to me.

Share this post


Link to post
"If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."

The above stamement does not undo what was said before.

It is like saying that someone is not sexist just because after saying that women are lower than men and like mere children he nevertheless says we should not beat them.

Well, gosh....when you get the god job and make the world live up to your standards...which situation would you prefer, Tarski? The guy who thinks women are children but demands they not be abused or the one who thinks women are children and advocates they be abused?

Any more off-topic absurdities? Or is this where you guys start pulling out all of the ugly quotes to make sure that everyone can see your moral outrage, superiority and effort to make the world a better place by wallpapering it with every painful relic of the past you can bring up?

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, and Pahoran, I have the entire 26 volume set of the Journal of Discourses at my fingertips. Are you implying that the Journal of Discourses does NOT contain racist sermons spoken by Brigham Young, or that Brigham Young simply never gave racist sermons, or that proof the Journal of Discourses ever existed, or that this plainly stated, deplorable racist paragraph could possibly be misinterpreted without pages of "context" ---- or all of the above?

And another really convincing rebuttal!

I'm looking really really hard and I haven't seen one poster "imply" anything. We are straight up proclaiming that BY came up with some real embarrassing goose eggs. Your problem is that there are libraries filled with research on race theory, race relations and the abysmal records of all of society. BY pales in comparison no matter how putrid some of his comments sound to us now.

I notice you disregarded the majority of my point.

Brigham's "comments" were boldly proclaimed to be the LAW OF GOD...not Brigham's personal ideas regarding race relations.

There are only a few possibilities in my opinion:

1. Brigham is correct. The paragraph represents the LAW of God, and it will always be so.

2. Brigham is incorrect. The Prophet has stood at the pulpit and explained the LAW OF GOD in error. Any Latter-day Saints following the explanation of the Law of God have been led astray. Brigham has made a LIAR out of God.

3. Brigham was neither correct nor incorrect regarding doctrine, he was simply stating his own fallible opinion. It makes me wonder how a PROPHET OF GOD could stand at the pulpet and declare plainly the LAWS of GOD, knowing all the while he is simply spewing his own "Goose Egg".

Brigham was declaring God's opinion on this one (LAW OF GOD). Brigham's own personal opinion can't be the scapegoat here. If Brigham really was providing only his personal, false opinion regarding the LAW OF GOD, all while claiming the LAW OF GOD, well I guess that creates a whole new problem, doesn't it?

Sorry for my rambling. I would just appreciate if LDS members would take the prophet at his word when he declares the LAW OF GOD from the pulpit. "That's his own, not-so-uncommon opinion" just doesn't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course, there's this one small detail: Brigham is explaining from the pulpit in the tabernacle of the Lord what the LAW OF GOD is.

All arguments falling back on Brigham's personal fallibility and his personal racist beliefs common of the day are all nonsense! Brigham isn't giving us a secret about his personal views people...he's explaining the LAW OF GOD.

So are we gonna get more of the same, Clintonesque weasel arguments explaining that when the PROPHET of GOD stands at the PULPIT and EXPLAINS THE LAW OF GOD and the duration of the law (ALWAYS) --- well this shouldn't count for anything more than Brigham's personal favorite number or color. We should take his sermon with a wee grain of salt...coincidentally, the sermon is entirely UNACCAPTABLE by today's standards. That wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

Oh, and Pahoran, I have the entire 26 volume set of the Journal of Discourses at my fingertips. Are you implying that the Journal of Discourses does NOT contain racist sermons spoken by Brigham Young, or that Brigham Young simply never gave racist sermons, or that proof the Journal of Discourses ever existed, or that this plainly stated, deplorable racist paragraph could possibly be misinterpreted without pages of "context" ---- or all of the above?

This is quite strong. I don't see how you get around it. A self proclaimed prophet proclaims the LAW of GOD. Now lets see what he says. Is that the law of God?

Share this post


Link to post
which situation would you prefer, Tarski? The guy who thinks women are children but demands they not be abused or the one who thinks women are children and advocates they be abused?

I think most people would prefer neither. Shame you keep having to defend your people that were called of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Tanyan
Here we go again !. Why is not the entire previous events leading up to this statement [Out of context !] given ?.

Deborah

Again there is lack of understanding and context.

Share this post


Link to post

the fact that he made a few comments with racist undertones should not hurt your faith.

I certainly disagree. I think that this kind of idea could not come from a true prophet. No one with dialog with God could harbor such ignorant feelings. I'm sure someone will point to some passage in a text thousands of years old (and many times translated) to prove me wrong. No way. Your church withheld the blessings of religion to an entire group of people based on ill-concieved social influences. Period. BY was no more a prophet than I.

What do you know of God and his servants? Seriously, this is coming from someone who would rather sit at home on Sunday and watch football then participate in worshipping the Lord, your GOD. [edited]

Moderator: Do not namecall.

Share this post


Link to post
I think most people would prefer neither. Shame you keep having to defend your people that were called of God.

Another great rebuttal. I missed the part where I am defending anything. You missed the part where only fundamentalists demand infallibility and inerrancy from human beings other than themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×