Was the Priesthood Ban a "Good Idea"?

[ELF1024]

What is authentically evil today was also authentically evil in Brigham Young's day: ". . .for I am the Lord, I change not. . . ." (Mal. 3:6)

It avails you nothing to seek refuge in multiple decades of history and the rise (and influence) of political correctness. I do, however, give you credit for trying.

Oh well gee wiz! You mean that BY didn't meet today's Political Correctness Requirements in his language and speech! How... horrid! He must not be a Prophet of the Lord if he didn't know that his Politically Incorrect ways were going to be undoing over 100 years after his death.

[paulpatter]

Oh well gee wiz! You mean that BY didn't meet today's Political Correctness Requirements in his language and speech! How... horrid! He must not be a Prophet of the Lord if he didn't know that his Politically Incorrect ways were going to be undoing over 100 years after his death.

Not only did he not meet today's political correctness requirements, he didn't meet even the rudimentary requirements of his day for civil speech and humane discourse. Can you imagine that President James Buchanan (or any responsible American leader) would say anything even remotely as racist as Brigham Young's deplorable "some members of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely. . .low in their habits." etc? (FYI, Buchanan was president when BY made that statement, and others just as grievous.)

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. --Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 110.

[MosesStone1980]

It would be interesting to get a non-caucasian persective on the subject.

Obviously with our membership not being strictly white, people have come to terms with the issue.

[ELF1024]

Not only did he not meet today's political correctness requirements, he didn't meet even the rudimentary requirements of his day for civil speech and humane discourse. Can you imagine that President James Buchanan (or any responsible American leader) would say anything even remotely as racist as Brigham Young's deplorable "some members of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely. . .low in their habits." etc? (FYI, Buchanan was president when BY made that statement, and others just as grievous.)

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. --Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 110.

I'm pretty sure I've heard the same level of uncouthness from the current president of the United States.

At the time of the incident, Gates had demanded an apology from Crowley and called him a "rogue policeman." After Obama's "acted stupidly" comment, Crowley said that, while he supported the president, Obama was "way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts."

... and yes, I do consider them of the same level of stupidity. No one today would argue that BY was correct in his assessment of the Black population. In fact I am sure that most Mormons are embarrassed by BY remarks. However they were 100 years ago and are hardly relevant today. The "Priesthood Ban" as been over as far as the dark skinned population is concerned for over 40 years. What more do you want?

[paulpatter]

I'm pretty sure I've heard the same level of uncouthness from the current president of the United States.

Prove it (CFR).

: ... No one today would argue that BY was correct in his assessment of the Black population. In fact I am sure that most Mormons are embarrassed by BY remarks.

Thank you, although as this thread demonstrates, some people are decidedly not embarrassed by BY's remarks. Astonishing.

: However they were 100 years ago and are hardly relevant today.

They are relevant in the context of endeavoring to answer the question--one of historical significance--posed by the thread's title

: The "Priesthood Ban" as been over as far as the dark skinned population is concerned for over 40 years. What more do you want?

I didn't initiate the thread; hence, your question should be directed elsewhere.

[ELF1024]

Prove it (CFR).

Thank you, although as this thread demonstrates, some people are decidedly not embarrassed by BY's remarks. Astonishing.

They are relevant in the context of endeavoring to answer the question--one of historical significance--posed by the thread's title

I didn't initiate the thread; hence, your question should be directed elsewhere.

I already answered your CFR in the original post.

[thesometimesaint]

Peterpaul:

Presidents of the US have done and said much worse.

[paulpatter]

Peterpaul:

Presidents of the US have done and said much worse.

(I assume you are referring to me, but put-down, mocking references to posters' monikers constitute cheap shots.)

If "Presidents of the US have done and said much worse," please document your claim in the form of a list . Provide the names of the guilty presidents, and summarize the racist statements they made--in a public setting--against black people.

Good luck with that.

[paulpatter]

I already answered your CFR in the original post.

Which post was that?

[Jeff K.]

(I assume you are referring to me, but put-down, mocking references to posters' monikers constitute cheap shots.)

If "Presidents of the US have done and said much worse," please document your claim in the form of a list . Provide the names of the guilty presidents, and summarize the racist statements they made--in a public setting--against black people.

Good luck with that.

Your kidding right? Andrew Jackson and the "Trail of Tears" why which he defied the Supreme Court and ordered the Cherokee nation of of their homes in the dead of winter marched them hundreds of miles with thousands of deaths?

Obama continues, even after condemning Bush, international extraordinary renditions. You know, where you kidnap someone, and then let another country do the torturing while you sit and listen, that way you don't technically break any laws. It is still allowed by executive order of President Obama. Would that be hypocrisy?

Polk's instigation of war with Mexico, mainly because the US wanted more land.

And that is just at the top of my head.

You compare those policies to Brigham Youngs?

[Jeff K.]

In regard to racist remarks.....

Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Douglas debates agreed that the negro was not his equal, but deserved to earn his bread and butter by his own hand. The statement is more diplomatic, but essentially states the same thing.

Lincoln basically acknowledges the "negro" to be inferior, but that the negro would be allowed to earn his own way. Just not at the same table.

I think history is more nuanced than we may think it to be.

[thesometimesaint]

paulpatter:

No insult was intended. Please forgive my fumble fingers.

To answer your question.

http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm

Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

The last president to own slaves while in office was the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).

The last president to own slaves at all was the eighteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877).

So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president.

More to follow.

[CV75]

If we don't know for sure whose idea it was, can we help in part to determine the idea's origin by judging the value of the idea?

RE: not knowing for sure whose idea it was, see D&C 46: 7-9:

[USU78]

Not only did he not meet today's political correctness requirements, he didn't meet even the rudimentary requirements of his day for civil speech and humane discourse. Can you imagine that President James Buchanan (or any responsible American leader) would say anything even remotely as racist as Brigham Young's deplorable "some members of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely. . .low in their habits." etc? (FYI, Buchanan was president when BY made that statement, and others just as grievous.)

Your ignorance is profound, pp, and you've plainly never read much from the pre- and Victorian-era American speakers/writers. Take a look at a speech at the centennial of a particularly bloody and violent Amerind attack on Anglo settlers on the frontier during the Revolution: http://books.google.com/books?id=hKo-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=wyoming+massacre+centennial+speech&source=bl&ots=ckyhaTRJob&sig=Tii9dgddxOPoT9z3LvbnSPq4i18&hl=en&ei=MP2ETc6YHJCqsAOthbSDAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

In comparison, BY seems pretty level-headed and calm . . . and short-winded. pp needs to know more before he jumps on his favorite antiMo canards mined by the likes of Geraldsonyatanner without regard for context but with slavish obedience to their bone-deep antipathy.

[USU78]

I already answered your CFR in the original post.

I'm glad you got your avatar back, ELF. It's been too long.

[USU78]

(I assume you are referring to me, but put-down, mocking references to posters' monikers constitute cheap shots.)

If "Presidents of the US have done and said much worse," please document your claim in the form of a list . Provide the names of the guilty presidents, and summarize the racist statements they made--in a public setting--against black people.

Good luck with that.

Buck Buchanan 1857-58, the era of his famous Blunder.

[paulpatter]

Your kidding right? Andrew Jackson and the "Trail of Tears" why which he defied the Supreme Court and ordered the Cherokee nation of of their homes in the dead of winter marched them hundreds of miles with thousands of deaths?

Obama continues, even after condemning Bush, international extraordinary renditions. You know, where you kidnap someone, and then let another country do the torturing while you sit and listen, that way you don't technically break any laws. It is still allowed by executive order of President Obama. Would that be hypocrisy?

Polk's instigation of war with Mexico, mainly because the US wanted more land.

And that is just at the top of my head.

You compare those policies to Brigham Youngs?

Be careful about what you find at the top of your head. In Post 83, I wrote: "If 'Presidents of the US have done and said much worse,' please document your claim in the form of a list. Provide the names of the guilty presidents, and summarize the racist statements they made--in a public setting--against black people [emphases added]."

Perhaps you turned in late. I have cited racist statements made by Brigham Young (and others) against blacks in response to the thread's title-question: "Was the Priesthood Ban a 'Good Idea'"?

Do try to stay focused.

BTW, in your diversionary verbal excursion you forgot LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin.

[paulpatter]

Your ignorance is profound, pp, and you've plainly never read much from the pre- and Victorian-era American speakers/writers. Take a look at a speech at the centennial of a particularly bloody and violent Amerind attack on Anglo settlers on the frontier during the Revolution: http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Your ad hominem assault/insult aside (a reportable offense), your reference to the Amerind attack has nothing whatever to do with Brigham Young's racism directed against blacks and his instigation of the priesthood ban (which is what this thread is about). I suggest you read Post 92 for a more thorough explanation.

: In comparison, BY seems pretty level-headed and calm . . . and short-winded.

There is no basis on which to make a comparison, which should be ah, er "profoundly" obvious.

: pp needs to know more before he jumps on his favorite antiMo canards mined by the likes of Geraldsonyatanner without regard for context but with slavish obedience to their bone-deep antipathy.

Oops--you need to know more: I'm a life-long Latter-day Saint who has served in two bishoprics and on one high council (while sending three sons on missions). I am amused by (and, yes, disappointed in) those LDS who believe, robot-like, that any critical analysis of events in Church history axiomatically makes the critic an "antiMo."

[Jeff K.]

I suggest you read up on Andrew Jackson and the American Indians before you become too pleased with yourself. Genocide should have been his middle name. I included a number of quick and ready thoughts regarding some presidents, not all of them.

I suggest you attempt to focus and avoid the specious.

[paulpatter]

paulpatter:

No insult was intended. Please forgive my fumble fingers.

To answer your question.

http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm

Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

The last president to own slaves while in office was the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).

The last president to own slaves at all was the eighteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877).

So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president.

More to follow.

Commendable research. Please see, however, Post 92.

[Jeff K.]

You seem to place more emphasis on words rather than actions. I think you have it backwards.

[USU78]

I suggest you read Post 92 for a more thorough explanation.

pp, you don't get to direct how others respond. So sorry. "The only good Injun is a dead Injun" type statements by public figures at the time in long, long, long, long speeches like the one I linked, or even short ones were de rigueur both during Reconstruction and earlier. Indeed, the racial statements in antebellum USmerica by all sorts of folk would curl your hair should you elect to become educated on the subject.

In order to see BY as his fellows saw him and he saw himself, you need to understand his milieu, and no amount of "but, you guys got 'dead Injun' quotes and that's a wholly different matter" is going to counter the reality.

I just had a notion: We need to create an organization in the vein of the "Defenders of Dead Mormon Women" . . . we could call it the "Defenders of pre-1978 Black Folks Who May at Some Point Have Been Interested in Joining the Church but Didn't Because of the Priesthood Ban" . . . catchy title, don'tcha think?

[paulpatter]

I suggest you read up on Andrew Jackson and the American Indians before you become too pleased with yourself. Genocide should have been his middle name. I included a number of quick and ready thoughts regarding some presidents, not all of them.

I suggest you attempt to focus and avoid the specious.

We know about the atrocities sanctioned by several US presidents against Native Americans.

Speaking of focus, that isn't (sigh) what this thread is about.

[paulpatter]

pp, you don't get to direct how others respond. So sorry.

Found a back door for your diversionary tactics, have you? Perhaps you should read what appears under "General Discussions" located at the beginning of this forum, to wit: "For topics and discussions concerning LDS Doctrine, History, Geography, etc. Please stay on topic [;] all off topic posts will be moved/deleted" [emphasis mine].

Inasmuch as the rest of your post is off topic, it doesn't merit a response. I do have a suggestion, however: Start a new thread titled "The Crimes of American Presidents."

You might be able to manage that.

[USU78]

Found a back door for your diversionary tactics, have you? Perhaps you should read what appears under "General Discussions" located at the beginning of this forum, to wit: "For topics and discussions concerning LDS Doctrine, History, Geography, etc. Please stay on topic [;] all off topic posts will be moved/deleted" [emphasis mine].

Inasmuch as the rest of your post is off topic, it doesn't merit a response. I do have a suggestion, however: Start a new thread titled "The Crimes of American Presidents."

You might be able to manage that.

Please pay attention. The issue was and is BY, his mode of speechifying, and how that fits in his time and place. You cannot judge BY, his conference and other addresses, the Priesthood Ban, and all related topics without understanding the world in which they arose. The speech I linked wasn't by a US president, but of course you knew that.

The presentism rampant in pp's posts in this here thread gives me a headache.