Jump to content

Archived

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

Benji

Brigham Young and extreme racism

Recommended Posts

Juliann,

I was referring to your comments on this:

or that this plainly stated, deplorable racist paragraph could possibly be misinterpreted without pages of "context

You then said:

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

So I showed the people that implied that this was taken out of context. You may have written the above in regards to the racist issue and not the context issue. Your statement was for the whole thing so I showed you were 2 people DID imply that it was taken out of context. If calling it out of context and saying we misunderstood what was being said was not denying that it happened, I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post

What if we don't change with a revelatory church? What if it does not matter what who taught what back in the day? I am guessing some don't believe in prophets, prophecy or opinions and would not know revelation if it was blasted from the rooftops ?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Oh, yawn. How many under this "law of God" who "mixed seed" with the African race died on the spot? Name them for us, please. I mean...if death was the law of God there would have been a lot of very dead plantation owners caught in the act. Funny BY wouldn't have realized that...or maybe this just means something a little different than you need it to mean.

Come on...names. The death rate would have been so catestrophic it would have hit every headline in the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Observer said: 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".

I'm glad you said "in your opinion," because that gives you a convenient "out" for the rather glaring error you made. (Did anyone else notice it? Hint: It is in choice #1.)

You are operating from the assumption that the "LAW OF GOD" never changes. It does, of course. There are many examples of "everlasting law" changing in the Bible even. God can declare one "law" to one people at one time and a different "law" to a different people (or the same people) at a different time. This is the way that God has worked throughout history.

Thus, Brigham could rightfully and honestly state that something was the "LAW OF GOD" (are these your caps or his?) and we don't need to view it as such today. Critics may see this as somehow "convenient," but the LDS see it as a sign of continuing revelation and consistent with scriptural history.

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post

I am also guessing that those who cahrge Brigham with racism would also say that Christ was racist because he did not take the Gospel to the Chinese. Was he racist? Also I am interested in learning what other churches, other then LDS, some of the posters belong to. Howcome you have not taken the Gospel to Winnipeg? I have never been approached by anyone saying they were the true Church. Are YOU racist against winnipeggers?

Share this post


Link to post
I am also guessing that those who cahrge Brigham with racism would also say that Christ was racist because he did not take the Gospel to the Chinese. Was he racist? Also I am interested in learning what other churches, other then LDS, some of the posters belong to. Howcome you have not taken the Gospel to Winnipeg? I have never been approached by anyone saying they were the true Church. Are YOU racist against winnipeggers?

Christ didn't say the chinese were low and cursed. (Do you even know what racism is?) Christ did take his gospel to the chinese though his disciples and future followers. Thats how it was supposed to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Funny BY wouldn't have realized that...or maybe this just means something a little different than you need it to mean.

Do tell, please enlighten us on the correct meaning.

How many under this "law of God" who "mixed seed" with the African race died on the spot? Name them for us, please.

Seriously, are you asking us to give proof that this was a true prophecy?

Share this post


Link to post
So I showed the people that implied that this was taken out of context. You may have written the above in regards to the racist issue and not the context issue. Your statement was for the whole thing so I showed you were 2 people DID imply that it was taken out of context. If calling it out of context and saying we misunderstood what was being said was not denying that it happened, I don't know what is.

Come on, Mor. You seem pretty reasonable. Your accusation was "Shame you keep having to defend your people that were called of God. " There was nothing about context or anything else. Like I said...I have not seen one poster defending BY's comments. I see no content in any of this...just a lot of flying red herrings and some pretty blaring double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
You are operating from the assumption that the "LAW OF GOD" never changes. It does, of course. There are many examples of "everlasting law" changing in the Bible even. God can declare one "law" to one people at one time and a different "law" to a different people (or the same people) at a different time. This is the way that God has worked throughout history.

So you truly think that the statements that were taught in regards to race were once gods views?

Share this post


Link to post

Thus, Brigham could rightfully and honestly state that something was the "LAW OF GOD" (are these your caps or his?) and we don't need to view it as such today. Critics may see this as somehow "convenient," but the LDS see it as a sign of continuing revelation and consistent with scriptural history.

Yes, I would say that that is most convenient. You don't really believe that do you? I mean, you don't believe that the Law of God once looked at blacks as an inferior and cursed race, but has now changed. I would not label that logic as convenient but a load of bull..

Share this post


Link to post

Re: Brigham Young and the reference of "law of god"

While many in a modern context would expect that everything that a prophet said at this time was processed with little to no discussion, this wasn't exactly the case. In fact, there was a lot of healthy, if not sometimes contentious, debate about how authoritative a prophet's podium assertions were when they were short of being declared a revelation.

HEre is an excerpt from Paul Jame Bergera's "Conflict in the Quorum" where you see Orson Pratt issuing this to fellow apostles:" "When [President Young] says that the Spirit of the Lord says thus and so, I don

Share this post


Link to post
Your accusation was "Shame you keep having to defend your people that were called of God. " There was nothing about context or anything else.

Juliann, you are mixing two entirely different posts, go back and re-read it. For the record, there may be some read herrings flopping around the board, but this is coming from both sides, with some strawmen for good measure.

Share this post


Link to post

AKS,

you wrote:

Pahoran, get that egg off of your smug face yet?

Not everyone is racist, only the ignorant. I have trouble believing that God would call ignorant people to recieve his revelation. This is just my opinion of course.

Yes, and it's a remarkably ignorant one.

I used to be as knowledgeable as you now are; then, when I was about 12, I moved to a different place, and found myself living among different people. Including some who, in the plenitude of my pre-adolescent omniscience, I had assumed were discriminated against only because of the ignorance of others. I then learned that the people I had supposed were really just-like-me-only-a-different-colour had quite different cultural imperatives and values than I did. I also learned that they could be just as "racist" as those who were the same colour as me.

IOW, I learned that "racism" is the common affliction of all human society, everywhere.

And your vast ignorance of this rather simple fact leaves you every bit as subject to valid accusations of bigotry as Brigham ever was; and with much less excuse.

Speaking of ignorance, Tarski wrote:

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).

No he didn't.

No honest person asserts that he did, and no informed person actually believes that he did.

One can always argue over what a generation is.

Failed prophecies

Is it possible for you to be any more ignorant?

Have you bothered to read any of the discussions about these "failed prophecies?" You've just discredited yourself completely.

Besides which, IRR is a gang of anti-Mormon bigots, who are cited exclusively, and only, by other anti-Mormon bigots.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
Observer said: 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".

I'm glad you said "in your opinion," because that gives you a convenient "out" for the rather glaring error you made. (Did anyone else notice it? Hint: It is in choice #1.)

You are operating from the assumption that the "LAW OF GOD" never changes. It does, of course. There are many examples of "everlasting law" changing in the Bible even. God can declare one "law" to one people at one time and a different "law" to a different people (or the same people) at a different time. This is the way that God has worked throughout history.

Thus, Brigham could rightfully and honestly state that something was the "LAW OF GOD" (are these your caps or his?) and we don't need to view it as such today. Critics may see this as somehow "convenient," but the LDS see it as a sign of continuing revelation and consistent with scriptural history.

-Allen

Well then bad on Brigham. According to Brigham Young, the law would "always be so".

[Observer:] How long?

[brigham Young:] "Always."

[Observer:] Ok, but just to be certain, Brigham, this is the law of God when? [brigham:] ALWAYS.

It is of course convenient that I stated my post "in my opinion". I find it slightly odd that Brigham made no similar statement, while proclaiming the "Law of God...always [being] so..." - and yet, you have wiggled enough room for him as if he had included "in my opinion" in his sermon from the pulpit.

Your argument is with Brigham Young's "glaring error". The words "always be so" are his, not mine. But then, I'm sure you realized that before even replying, didn't you. Thanks for the tip, though. I'll pass it on to BY next time I visit the Lion House.

Just curious, do you have an alternate definition for the complicated english word "always" ????

Share this post


Link to post
HEre is an excerpt from Paul Jame Bergera's "Conflict in the Quorum" where you see Orson Pratt issuing this to fellow apostles:" "When [President Young] says that the Spirit of the Lord says thus and so, I don

Share this post


Link to post
Funny BY wouldn't have realized that...or maybe this just means something a little different than you need it to mean.

Do tell, please enlighten us on the correct meaning.

How many under this "law of God" who "mixed seed" with the African race died on the spot? Name them for us, please.

Seriously, are you asking us to give proof that this was a true prophecy?

You are the ones making the accusations. It is not my burden and your trying to shift it to me demonstrates an awareness that your position is absurd. There were no white people dying on the spot before or after this statement.

I would never call that a "prophecy". If you need it to be a prophecy then you have the burden of first demonstrating that it means what you need it to mean and then demonstrating that BY seriously meant people having sex with blacks were being struck dead in the act. You are the one sounding silly here...not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Your accusation was "Shame you keep having to defend your people that were called of God. " There was nothing about context or anything else.

Juliann, you are mixing two entirely different posts, go back and re-read it. For the record, there may be some read herrings flopping around the board, but this is coming from both sides, with some strawmen for good measure.

Mor, I really am the best expert on what I was responding to. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Then your notion of a prophet is different than a Mormon one, simple as that.

Mormons don't assert that their prophet hangs out on a mountain by himself to commune with God and then comes back and tells us things. He's got a more practical and grounded position in Mormonism. It's not a one man show-it's never been.

Prophets in Mormon settings have always used counsel and consensus with fellow leadership in terms of making decisions and even in terms of declaring revelation.

I don't see how having a sort of check and balance system seems wrong.It keeps authority grounded in some way, and relies on communal understanding, a basic element of Christianity in the first place. Christianity is communal, not personal, in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Observer said: 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".

I'm glad you said "in your opinion," because that gives you a convenient "out" for the rather glaring error you made. (Did anyone else notice it? Hint: It is in choice #1.)

You are operating from the assumption that the "LAW OF GOD" never changes. It does, of course. There are many examples of "everlasting law" changing in the Bible even. God can declare one "law" to one people at one time and a different "law" to a different people (or the same people) at a different time. This is the way that God has worked throughout history.

Thus, Brigham could rightfully and honestly state that something was the "LAW OF GOD" (are these your caps or his?) and we don't need to view it as such today. Critics may see this as somehow "convenient," but the LDS see it as a sign of continuing revelation and consistent with scriptural history.

-Allen

To bad that BY added "and this will always be so".

By the way, I do so enjoy the technique of changing the meaning of words to help alleviate doctrinal problems like is done with the words everlasting or eternal.

Look at the original greek or hebrew when these are used.

To parphrase Jamie Whyte from Crimes Against Logic:

"You can't show that goblins exist by calling geese "goblins"."

Share this post


Link to post
Some will further use this to cite how confused Mormons are. But I think it does talk to a community in it's early beginnings trying to figure out how to go about dealing with authority and regulation and getting better understanding what should be declared revelation or not. I think it shows a healthy begining to such processes.

We can pull up about ten pages of quotes with these prophets themselves saying they were not always speaking "for the Lord" but for the accusations of racism to stick the critic has to fall back on fundamentalism and not allow that. Nor can an incipient religion be allowed any trial and error, change or growth.

Share this post


Link to post
By the way, I do so enjoy the technique of changing the meaning of words to help alleviate doctrinal problems like is done with the words everlasting or eternal.

Look at the original greek or hebrew when these are used.

Tarski, I didn't know you knew Greek! I just did a year of it to spruce up my skills. Now give me the Greek words that you think mean eternal or everlasting and let's take a look.

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

Better than Goebbelsesque demagogue 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?

Maybe.

Then again, maybe the fact of what law this PROPHET of GOD enacted when he had the chance (remember that Brigham was territorial governor.)

Was there an anti-miscegenation law in Utah in his time?

Yes there was.

And did it prescribe the death penalty?

Prepare to be shocked:

No.

It prescribed that slaves should be confiscated from their masters.

Because the only form of miscegenation it proscribed was masters taking advantage of their female slaves.

That was it, and that was ALL of it.

Brigham was a master of hyperbole. Those who try to build a case against him based upon his words would have us believe that he was a mass murderer, but when it came to his actual deeds, you couldn't convict him of assaulting someone with a wet noodle.

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?

None of the above.

English isn't your first language, I take it?

My argument is nothing more or less than: when an anti-Mormon confines himself to quoting the standard anti-Mormon prooftexts, that's where he got them from.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
Benji;

Prophets are not perfect. Brigham was racist. So what? Moses was a murderer.

There will be no murderers in the CK or so I was told.

Share this post


Link to post
My argument is nothing more or less than: when an anti-Mormon confines himself to quoting the standard anti-Mormon prooftexts, that's where he got them from.

Convenient way to dismiss anything that goes against your opinion and nothing more. Label it anti-mormon and send it on it's way....

Share this post


Link to post
Mor, I really am the best expert on what I was responding to. 

Well, you still put a quote from me on another topic on the original discussion, and completely ignored that what you said hadn't happened actually had.

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.

×