Jump to content

Archived

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

cinepro

Was the Priesthood Ban a "Good Idea"?

Recommended Posts

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.

Actually it is. The question that comes to mind is the suggestion of race inferiority and how it interacted in the earlier times. You bring up quotes in regard to one specific race. But you fail to understand that such a prevelant system or racial heirarchy was neither uncommon nor unheard of outside the church. Whether we speak of Lincoln's acknowledgement that the "negro" was of inferior quality, or the actions of Jackson towards a "lesser" species (the American Indian) we can see how race played a part in the world view of presidents and their actions. More so that one or two quotes. This is especially true when you consider the "civilized" nation of the Cherokee and their attempts to use a "civilized" means to protect their homes and nation. To Jackson, their race meant also that he need not follow the dictates of the law when dealing with them. If that isn't racism I don't know what is.

I should have walked you through it more carefully, it seemed obvious to me, but apparently there are some gaps in regard to the history of the US that you need to have filled.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually it is. The question that comes to mind is the suggestion of race inferiority and how it interacted in the earlier times. You bring up quotes in regard to one specific race.

Pursuant to the question posed by the thread's title, I do more than "bring up quotes in regard to one specific race." I cite the statements of Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others (including statements in LDS Church publications) regarding blacks and the priesthood ban and whether or not it was a good idea.

You and others seek to make the case that because overt racism existed in BY's day (and you give examples), BY was justified in saying what he said about blacks. Prophets of God typically do not follow the crowd (many have been stoned to death for failing to do so). US presidents, on the other hand, do follow the crowd (that's how they get elected). Consequently, that "case" with respect to BY's racist statements lacks merit.

: But you fail to understand that such a prevelant system or racial heirarchy was neither uncommon nor unheard of outside the church.

I understand it perfectly well. Is it your position, then, that as LDS we should abandon the counsel to "be in the world but not of the world"?

: Whether we speak of Lincoln's acknowledgement that the "negro" was of inferior quality, or the actions of Jackson towards a "lesser" species (the American Indian) we can see how race played a part in the world view of presidents and their actions.

Indeed it did, but those presidents didn't presume to be prophets who were receiving counsel from God regarding who had the right to hold the priesthood. Thanks, BTW, for mentioning Abraham Lincoln. BY endorsed slavery. In his 1852 message to the territorial legislature, he said: ". . .servitude may and should exist" and that "blacks were naturally designed for that purpose." Abraham Lincoln, in dramatic contrast, issued--in 1863--an executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation. That order freed 3.1 million of the nation's 4 million slaves (Wikipedia, "Emancipation Proclamation").

: More so that one or two quotes. This is especially true when you consider the "civilized" nation of the Cherokee and their attempts to use a "civilized" means to protect their homes and nation. To Jackson, their race meant also that he need not follow the dictates of the law when dealing with them. If that isn't racism I don't know what is.

Of course it was racism. But the Cherokees were not African blacks, and Jackson wasn't a prophet, and the right to hold the priesthood very likely never entered his mind with respect to Native Americans.

: I should have walked you through it more carefully, it seemed obvious to me, but apparently there are some gaps in regard to the history of the US that you need to have filled.

Could it be that there are some gaps in your ability to argue with credibility, rationality, and context that you need to have filled? Might want to give that some thought.

Share this post


Link to post

Please pay attention. The issue was and is BY, his mode of speechifying, and how that fits in his time and place.

Wrong, again. The issue is stated in the title of the thread in the form of a question. Your effort to divert attention (speaking of paying attention) from BY's racist agenda against blacks, which took the form of his denying them the priesthood, is, well, transparently ludicrous.

: You cannot judge BY, his conference and other addresses, the Priesthood Ban, and all related topics without understanding the world in which they arose.

Hmmm. . .as I noted in another post (with a slight change here), Brigham Young--according to you--must have been in the world and of the world.

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

Well, I'll be durned. Why don't ya'all jus-a stop-a readin' my posts is this here thread?

Share this post


Link to post
You and others seek to make the case that because overt racism existed in BY's day (and you give examples), BY was justified in saying what he said about blacks. Prophets of God typically do not follow the crowd (many have been stoned to death for failing to do so). US presidents, on the other hand, do follow the crowd (that's how they get elected). Consequently, that "case" with respect to BY's racist statements lacks merit.

Typically prophets are mortal men, it is ridiculous to preseume they are not influences in some of their statements of speculation. What you suffer from is a strong dose of presentism in which you desire to impress your specific judgement and viewpoint on a period of time when you would more than likely have a much stronger opinion as to race than Brigham Young did. Given your penchant for overt attacks, one would also presume you would extend that extremism when focused on race, in an environment where you were raised to see the races of others in a negative way.

Prophets of God do not follow a crowd, but just as Paul stated that women should remain silent in church (due to the cultural influences of his time, so too do we consider the issues and interplay of doctrine and the men who recieve it. You can't seem to understand that issue.

Quote

: But you fail to understand that such a prevelant system or racial heirarchy was neither uncommon nor unheard of outside the church.

I understand it perfectly well. Is it your position, then, that as LDS we should abandon the counsel to "be in the world but not of the world"?

I think the "all or nothing" scenario is a fallacy. We as Latter Day Saints were very much "not of the world" but that does not remove us from cultural influences in the world, things we struggle with. The church removed itself and set itself up as an isolated (but not autarkial) community in order to preserve its order. Your somewhat trite refrain overlooks a great deal in regard to how different Mormons were from the rest of the world. You presume that such differences were not enough and so some odd quotes to show that somehow we as Latter-Day Saints were not really "apart" from the world (regardless of all the other differences) reflects a dubious logic and a myopic and warped view of history.

Qu

ote

: Whether we speak of Lincoln's acknowledgement that the "negro" was of inferior quality, or the actions of Jackson towards a "lesser" species (the American Indian) we can see how race played a part in the world view of presidents and their actions.

Indeed it did, but those presidents didn't presume to be prophets who were receiving counsel from God regarding who had the right to hold the priesthood. Thanks, BTW, for mentioning Abraham Lincoln. BY endorsed slavery. In his 1852 message to the territorial legislature, he said: ". . .servitude may and should exist" and that "blacks were naturally designed for that purpose." Abraham Lincoln, in dramatic contrast, issued--in 1863--an executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation. That order freed 3.1 million of the nation's 4 million slaves (Wikipedia, "Emancipation Proclamation").

So you are of the mindset that everything a prophet says and does is propecy? That is another ridiculous standard and dismissed by both prophets and apostles.

You also need to learn your history. You don't understand context. Now, why did he free those slaves? And which ones did he free? :P

The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states that were in open rebellion against the Union. In other words, if you had slaves in the border states such as "Maryland", well they remained slaves. If you owned a slave in the North, it remained a slave. The issue wasn't a moral one, but a strategic one. By issuing the proclamation only for those states in rebellion, he undermined any industrial or work force that could have been put to use against the Northern armies. It wasn't a dramatic contrast. Lincoln used the slaves as a tool. Think about it.

Quote

: More so that one or two quotes. This is especially true when you consider the "civilized" nation of the Cherokee and their attempts to use a "civilized" means to protect their homes and nation. To Jackson, their race meant also that he need not follow the dictates of the law when dealing with them. If that isn't racism I don't know what is.

Of course it was racism. But the Cherokees were not African blacks, and Jackson wasn't a prophet, and the right to hold the priesthood very likely never entered his mind with respect to Native Americans.

And so that removes his from being a racist? Or rather more to the point it removes him from the list of presidents who have said and done worse than Brigham Young? I find your amateurish attempt to move the goal posts to be easily dismissed. You will have to come up with a better reason. Or do you believe Brigham Young's quote is worse than Andrew Jacksons treatment of the American Indians?

Quote

: I should have walked you through it more carefully, it seemed obvious to me, but apparently there are some gaps in regard to the history of the US that you need to have filled.

Could it be that there are some gaps in your ability to argue with credibility, rationality, and context that you need to have filled? Might want to give that some thought.

You have me there. I presumed you to be an intellectual equal and therefore able to understand a somewhat academic shorthand which did indeed hold the logical position. I promise I won't make that mistake again. Sometimes we overlook the fact that some of our brothers in the church do indeed need milk before meat. I assure you when I respond to your posts, I will make every attempt to use the terms and explain them fully in order to help you avoid making the same mistakes again.

If you would like I can write several paragraphs on the Emancipation Proclamation so that you can understand it in its context more fully. Especially how it fits into the contextual scheme of things in those times. And how the emancipation proclamation was something that still treated African Americans as an inferior race. Let me know and I will be glad to help you out on that.

Share this post


Link to post

Typically prophets are mortal men,

There's no doubt about that.

: it is ridiculous to preseume they are not influences in some of their statements of speculation.

". . .some of their statements of speculation"? Are you suggesting that BY was speculating when he said what he said about blacks, and then proceeded to deny them the priesthood?

: What you suffer from is a strong dose of presentism in which you desire to impress your specific judgement and viewpoint on a period of time when you would more than likely have a much stronger opinion as to race than Brigham Young did.

You engage here in rash, runaway speculation.

: Given your penchant for overt attacks, one would also presume you would extend that extremism when focused on race, in an environment where you were raised to see the races of others in a negative way.

Have you considered taking up fortune telling?

: Prophets of God do not follow a crowd, but just as Paul stated that women should remain silent in church (due to the cultural influences of his time, so too do we consider the issues and interplay of doctrine and the men who recieve it. You can't seem to understand that issue.

Apparently, then--by your "lights"-- BY's instigation of the priesthood ban was "inspired" as much by the world as by God. That isn't what he said when he discussed the ban. He spoke of the curse of Cain: ". . .they [blacks] never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. . . . They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed" (Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, Oct. 9, 1859). Do you find ANY references in that statement to the priesthood and the world's rationale for denying it to blacks?

: I think the "all or nothing" scenario is a fallacy.

So the Church endorsed a false motto and promoted it to the membership, particularly to young women. I'm surprised, frankly, that you would take that position.

: We as Latter Day Saints were very much "not of the world" but that does not remove us from cultural influences in the world, things we struggle with. The church removed itself and set itself up as an isolated (but not autarkial) community in order to preserve its order. Your somewhat trite refrain overlooks a great deal in regard to how different Mormons were from the rest of the world. You presume that such differences were not enough and so some odd quotes to show that somehow we as Latter-Day Saints were not really "apart" from the world (regardless of all the other differences) reflects a dubious logic and a myopic and warped view of history.

I confess that I can't make my way through your thicket of entangling syntax. What are you trying to say?

(Out of time; more to come.)

Share this post


Link to post

Paul,

You obviously think that genocide is just the way things were done, while denying the priesthood was an unspeakable crime against humanity. I must admit that that seems strange to me.

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.)

If Buchanan was a "responsible American leader," then I don't know who you are comparing him with; he was clearly a cynical political operator. I don't know if he made any "grievous" statements about Blacks that would offend your delicate sensibilities; you obviously overlook the fact that he didn't mind slavery at all, and that he instituted a pogrom against the Latter-day Saints.

That aside, you then quoted the following popular anti-Mormon prooftext:

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.

And who do you imagine was supposed to die?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

quote name='Jeff K.' timestamp='1300603030' post='1208987471'

: . . . . So you are of the mindset that everything a prophet says and does is propecy? That is another ridiculous standard and dismissed by both prophets and apostles.

You err; I'm not of that mindset. There is no documentation indicating that BY's priesthood ban was a revelation. In other words, it is questionable that BY was acting as a prophet when he decided to deny the priesthood to blacks. Indeed, the fact that there is no record prompted Apostle Hugh B. Brown to suggest that it wasn't necessary to receive a revelation in order to lift the ban.

: You also need to learn your history. You don't understand context. Now, why did he free those slaves? And which ones did he free?] :P

Context, FYI, requires a body of elements characterized by commonality or linkage or logical relationships; hence, "the part or parts of a written or spoken passage preceding or following a particular word or group of words and so intimately associated with them as to throw light upon their meaning" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, p. 492). Assume, for example (I'm trying to make this simple) that you are writing about the reliability of Honda lawn mowers. If you wanted to describe the mechanical design of such mowers--certainly a factor influencing reliability--you wouldn't cite the mechanical design of a Sharp paper shredder. The practice of withholding the priesthood from blacks has no logical connection to what US presidents did to Native Americans or Mexicans or anyone else.

: The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states that were in open rebellion against the Union. In other words, if you had slaves in the border states such as "Maryland", well they remained slaves. If you owned a slave in the North, it remained a slave. The issue wasn't a moral one, but a strategic one. By issuing the proclamation only for those states in rebellion, he undermined any industrial or work force that could have been put to use against the Northern armies. It wasn't a dramatic contrast. Lincoln used the slaves as a tool. Think about it.

Your analysis is--to say the least--cynical. Lincoln's primary concern, consistent with his adherence to his oath of office, was to preserve the Union and to prevent slavery from spreading into Western territories. He encouraged the seceded states to join the Union, but when no state returned, he issued the proclamation--an act that freed 3.1 of the nation's 4 million slaves (various sources, including Wikipedia and Answers.com). Lincoln had his priorities right, your flawed analysis notwithstanding.

: And so that removes his from being a racist? Or rather more to the point it removes him from the list of presidents who have said and done worse than Brigham Young?

Preserving the Union was a racist act, eh? Freeing 3.1 million slaves was an evil undertaking, eh?

: I find your amateurish attempt to move the goal posts to be easily dismissed. You will have to come up with a better reason. Or do you believe Brigham Young's quote is worse than Andrew Jacksons treatment of the American Indians?

The subject of this thread is "Was the Priesthood Ban a 'Good Idea'"? The subject of this thread is "Was the Priesthood Ban a "Good Idea'" The subject of this thread is. . .

You have me there. I presumed you to be an intellectual equal and therefore able to understand a somewhat academic shorthand which did indeed hold the logical position. I promise I won't make that mistake again. Sometimes we overlook the fact that some of our brothers in the church do indeed need milk before meat. I assure you when I respond to your posts, I will make every attempt to use the terms and explain them fully in order to help you avoid making the same mistakes again.

For the record, let me confess that I knew right away I could never be your intellectual equal; however, I thought I would give it a try ("fools rush in. . . "). Your understanding of "context," for example, breaks new ground. Your ability to focus on the topic under discussion disassembles the rules of classical argument. And your rationale for excusing Brigham Young's multiplicity of racist statements is simply sheer "genius." And oh, your modesty--utterly free of even a hint of patronage--is nothing short of commendable.

: If you would like I can write several paragraphs on the Emancipation Proclamation so that you can understand it in its context more fully. Especially how it fits into the contextual scheme of things in those times. And how the emancipation proclamation was something that still treated African Americans as an inferior race. Let me know and I will be glad to help you out on that.

Really? You would be generous enough--as a world-class authority--to do that for me? Single-handedly, you have restored my faith in the goodness of humanity. Still, I must decline out of respect for the demands made on your time by what must surely be legions of publishers.

Share this post


Link to post
You err; I'm not of that mindset. There is no documentation indicating that BY's priesthood ban was a revelation. In other words, it is questionable that BY was acting as a prophet when he decided to deny the priesthood to blacks. Indeed, the fact that there is no record prompted Apostle Hugh B. Brown to suggest that it wasn't necessary to receive a revelation in order to lift the ban.

Other than a suggestion, I would say policies changed a great deal, whether it be the United Order, ZCMI, Utah Wars. But the policy regarding the priesthood did not change, even as many many different apostles and presidents entered the quorum. In other words, you are asking us to believe no one thought it was a revelation, and therefore no one, of many different stripes and ideas, thought to challenge it beyond an exception or two? This makes sense to you? It indicates to me that it was considered a revelation, whether something was written down or not.

So you are basing your entire argument that there was no revelation. Such has not yet been established. If even apostles aren't sure, then I would suggest you are in a less sure position.

Quote

: The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states that were in open rebellion against the Union. In other words, if you had slaves in the border states such as "Maryland", well they remained slaves. If you owned a slave in the North, it remained a slave. The issue wasn't a moral one, but a strategic one. By issuing the proclamation only for those states in rebellion, he undermined any industrial or work force that could have been put to use against the Northern armies. It wasn't a dramatic contrast. Lincoln used the slaves as a tool. Think about it.

Your analysis is--to say the least--cynical. Lincoln's primary concern, consistent with his adherence to his oath of office, was to preserve the Union and to prevent slavery from spreading into Western territories. He encouraged the seceded states to join the Union, but when no state returned, he issued the proclamation--an act that freed 3.1 of the nation's 4 million slaves (various sources, including Wikipedia and Answers.com). Lincoln had his priorities right, your flawed analysis notwithstanding.

My analysis is accurate, not cynical. Why do you believe Lincoln allowed northern states, border states and even Utah territory to keep slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation? I suggest you read up on the history. It fits in with Lincoln's other statements regarding African American inferiority. It provides context to the issue, something you seem wont to avoid.

Allow me to quote Sec. of State Seward

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Was Lincoln's secretary of state, an abolitionist, also cynical?

Quote

: And so that removes his from being a racist? Or rather more to the point it removes him from the list of presidents who have said and done worse than Brigham Young?

Preserving the Union was a racist act, eh? Freeing 3.1 million slaves was an evil undertaking, eh?

The constitution made special allowances for slavery, allowances which only touched upon one race... You tell me.

Quote

: I find your amateurish attempt to move the goal posts to be easily dismissed. You will have to come up with a better reason. Or do you believe Brigham Young's quote is worse than Andrew Jacksons treatment of the American Indians?

The subject of this thread is "Was the Priesthood Ban a 'Good Idea'"? The subject of this thread is "Was the Priesthood Ban a "Good Idea'" The subject of this thread is. . .

You presented the question of whether any president of the US said or did anything worse than Young. Included with slavery, racism also existed among other presidents. Again, Andrew Jackson was much worse than anything said or carried out by Young. I think that has now been well established.

Quote

You have me there. I presumed you to be an intellectual equal and therefore able to understand a somewhat academic shorthand which did indeed hold the logical position. I promise I won't make that mistake again. Sometimes we overlook the fact that some of our brothers in the church do indeed need milk before meat. I assure you when I respond to your posts, I will make every attempt to use the terms and explain them fully in order to help you avoid making the same mistakes again.

For the record, let me confess that I knew right away I could never be your intellectual equal; however, I thought I would give it a try ("fools rush in. . . "). Your understanding of "context," for example, breaks new ground. Your ability to focus on the topic under discussion disassembles the rules of classical argument. And your rationale for excusing Brigham Young's multiplicity of racist statements is simply sheer "genius." And oh, your modesty--utterly free of even a hint of patronage--is nothing short of commendable.

Let me know when you attempt to present a classical argument. I promise to be impressed with your efforts. :P

If you don't like to be accused of presentism, then stop using it.

Quote

: If you would like I can write several paragraphs on the Emancipation Proclamation so that you can understand it in its context more fully. Especially how it fits into the contextual scheme of things in those times. And how the emancipation proclamation was something that still treated African Americans as an inferior race. Let me know and I will be glad to help you out on that.

Really? You would be generous enough--as a world-class authority--to do that for me? Single-handedly, you have restored my faith in the goodness of humanity. Still, I must decline out of respect for the demands made on your time by what must surely be legions of publishers.

Oh, surely not world class. But relative to what you have presented, yes, I can see you thinking that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

quote name='Pahoran' timestamp='1300666982' post='1208987662'

: Paul,

You obviously think that genocide is just the way things were done, while denying the priesthood was an unspeakable crime against humanity. I must admit that that seems strange to me.

It seems strange to me as well, inasmuch as you take the liberty of obviously assigning attitudes to me I do not own.

: If Buchanan was a "responsible American leader," then I don't know who you are comparing him with; he was clearly a cynical political operator. I don't know if he made any "grievous" statements about Blacks that would offend your delicate sensibilities; you obviously overlook the fact that he didn't mind slavery at all, and that he instituted a pogrom against the Latter-day Saints.

Are you aware of any presidents who, together with their handlers, have not been "cynical political operators"? Would you feel more comfortable with Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, Warren G. Harding, etc.? History demonstrates that it's possible for a president to be a cynical political operator and still conduct his executive duties responsibly. Case in point: Richard M. Nixon who opened the door to China. BTW, someone else who "didn't mind slavery at all" was Brigham Young.

: That aside, you then quoted the following popular anti-Mormon prooftext:

[My quotation is not included here. See Post 106. It's interesting, BTW, that you disparage the quotation but do not question its accuracy. Note, too, that the literal meaning of "proof text" [two words] is "Scriptural passage adduced as proof for a theological doctrine, belief, or principle (Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, p. 1,817). Am I to assume that you think BY's statement was scripture?

: And who do you imagine was supposed to die?

The white man, of course, for mixing his seed with the "black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, Oct. 9, 1859).

: Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
It seems strange to me as well, inasmuch as you take the liberty of obviously assigning attitudes to me I do not own.

You insisted that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries, and then brushed aside acts of genocide as being irrelevant to the question. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that?

Are you aware of any presidents who, together with their handlers, have not been "cynical political operators"?

Good point.

[My quotation is not included here. See Post 106. It's interesting, BTW, that you disparage the quotation but do not question its accuracy.

You are excerpting it and stripping it of its context, then throwing it in our faces for polemical purposes. Would you prefer the term "quote mining?"

The white man, of course, for <inflammatory race-baiting snipped.>

So, let's see: many of Brigham's contemporaries lynched black men for having sexual contact with white women, while the rest of them winked at the practice. Brigham completely turns this conventional racism on its head -- and that makes him more racist than his contemporaries?

How?

Now, are you able to respond without throwing out the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon prooftexts? Would you like to have an actual good faith discussion about one or the other of Brigham's statements in their context?

Or would that be too far beyond you?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Lincoln:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

He continued:

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

To Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, who had passed along a report of a rabid anti-Lincoln harangue in the Mississippi legislature, Lincoln wrote that "madman" there had quite misrepresented his views. He stated he was not "pledged to the ultimate extinction of slavery," and that he did not "hold the black man to be the equal of the white."30

When a Mississippian appeared at a reception for Lincoln in the Illinois statehouse, and boldly announced he was a secessionist, Lincoln responded by saying that he was opposed to any interference with slavery where it existed....Abraham Lincoln took the oath as President on March 4, 1861. Among the first words of his Inaugural Address was a pledge (repeating words from an August 1858 speech) intended to placate Southern apprehensions: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Referring to the proposed Crittenden amendment, which would make explicit constitutional protection of slavery where it already existed, he said, "I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable." He also promised to support legislation for the capture and return of runaway slaves.32

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Share this post


Link to post

quote name='Pahoran' timestamp='1300674120' post='1208987745'

: You insisted that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries,

You probably got that impression because certain posters insisted on justifying BY's racist comments by characterizing them as commonplace in his day. I responded by stating that a prophet of God should have risen above the commonplace. I haven't reviewed the entire thread, but I'm quite certain I never said BY was "more racist than his contemporaries."

: . . . and then brushed aside acts of genocide as being irrelevant to the question. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that?

Setting aside the fact that you use the pejorative voice ("brushed asde") to gain some argumentive leverage, the referenced "acts of genocide" were, in fact, irrelevant to the question; they were non-contextual. The right to bear the priesthood was an issue in. . . none of them.

Good point.

Thank you.

: You are excerpting it and stripping it of its context, then throwing it in our faces for polemical purposes. Would you prefer the term "quote mining?"

I have two responses: 1) There are multiple statements by BY in the same vein (and by other early Church leaders as well), and reading them in context tends to reinforce their blatant racism, not diminish it; 2) Since when were you opposed to the use of polemics in argumentation?

: So, let's see: many of Brigham's contemporaries lynched black men for having sexual contact with white women, while the rest of them winked at the practice. Brigham completely turns this conventional racism on its head . . . -- and that makes him more racist than his contemporaries?

No he doesn't turn it on its head. BY said that sexual contact with a person bearing the mark/curse of Cain--a person who is "uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, etc.," is so deplorable, so contrary to the will of God, that "death on the spot" is required." He adds, "This will always be so." (Source: Journal of Discourses, previously cited.) One could take the position, though I haven't, that BY was more racist than his contemporaries because of what I report in the first sentence of this paragraph. In addition, one could reinforce that position by noting that BY was speaking as a prophet of God; hence (I'll say it again), he should have risen above the commonplace.

: Now, are you able to respond without throwing out the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon prooftexts?

Shrink-wrapped or not, some of those so-called "proof texts" are accurate. I know that's painful for you to acknowledge; hence, you are forced to resort to attacking the format rather than the content. I am a life-long Latter-day Saint (member of two bishoprics, member of a high council, sponsor of three missionary sons, etc.). I think it's essential that honest, sincere, secure-in-the faith members come to grips with warts in the Church's history. Unless they can do that, how are they to be prepared to credibly answer the critics?

: Would you like to have an actual good faith discussion about one or the other of Brigham's statements in their context? Or would that be too far beyond you?

Over the years, Pahoran, I have read many of your posts on a wide range of LDS topics. Consequently, I know that a "good faith discussion" with you isn't possible. Even a hint of critical analysis about some aspect of "Mormonism" elicits aggressive--even abrasive--responses from you. So, to answer your question--yes, a "good faith discussion" with you would be "too far beyond [me]." Even in the short exchange we have just had, you mischaracterize my statements, settling instead for readily assailable strawman-style tactics.

Have a nice week.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a difference between "justifying" and "explaining".

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting, worthwhile quotations. Thanks for the link. Note, however, that I have never said Lincoln didn't hold racist views, although the contrast between his rhetoric and BY's is instructive. Lincoln's statements are free of venom. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of BY's statements. Recall, too, that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing 3.1 million slaves.

In any event, I fail to see how Lincoln's views help to answer the question "Was the Priesthood Ban a 'Good Idea'"?

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting, worthwhile quotations. Thanks for the link. Note, however, that I have never said Lincoln didn't hold racist views, although the contrast between his rhetoric and BY's is instructive. Lincoln's statements are free of venom. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of BY's statements. Recall, too, that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing 3.1 million slaves.

In any event, I fail to see how Lincoln's views help to answer the question "Was the Priesthood Ban a 'Good Idea'"?

Free of venom? And he also never freed the slaves. I suggest you read his first inaugural speech. You might find it enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting, worthwhile quotations. Thanks for the link. Note, however, that I have never said Lincoln didn't hold racist views, although the contrast between his rhetoric and BY's is instructive. Lincoln's statements are free of venom. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of BY's statements.

I disagree. Read in context, Brigham's statements lose most or all of their "edge."

Which explains why they are never presented in context.

Recall, too, that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing 3.1 million slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in rebellious states, and in land not yet occupied by Federal forces. It had no application to any slave under Federal authority at the time it was issued. As such, it actually freed no slaves at all; it merely provided for such slaves to be freed based upon subsequent advances of Federal arms. IOW, it was a bet on future Northern victory.

Furthermore, the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was not to free slaves; it was to secure public opinion in the UK so as to guard against British recognition of the Confederacy. Once it was issued, no British politician would dare vote for any pro-Southern measures.

In any event, I fail to see how Lincoln's views help to answer the question "Was the Priesthood Ban a 'Good Idea'"?

Oddly enough, I fail to see what the standard "racist Brigham" prooftexts have to do with that question either; and yet, as inevitable as the sunrise, they do appear.

Like every other prophet in this, or any, dispensation, Brigham was immeasurably better than his accusers.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
Oddly enough, I fail to see what the standard "racist Brigham" prooftexts have to do with that question either; and yet, as inevitable as the sunrise, they do appear.

Like every other prophet in this, or any, dispensation, Brigham was immeasurably better than his accusers.

I remind the learned gentleman from ANZAC that this BY stuff was begun by his interlocutor posting this two days ago:

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.)

Whereupon said interlocutor started arguing that any context provided for BY's statements was inapposite of his post.

Really.

Share this post


Link to post

Free of venom?

Find me anything Lincoln said about black people that compares--that even comes close--in mordancy to what BY said about black people. I have posted on this thread only some of BY's deplorable statements about blacks; there are more virtually as harsh.

: And he also never freed the slaves. I suggest you read his first inaugural speech. You might find it enlightening.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Lincoln's directive resulted in freeing 3.1 million slaves (I have cited the source previously). Was freeing the slaves his primary objective? No. You might find the following enlightening (in addition to what he said in his first inaugural address, March 4, 1861): "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be 'the Union it was.' If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that" (Letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862).

Share this post


Link to post

So . . . Lincoln expressed the same thing, more or less, but did it in "nicer" language, saying merely that his "feelings" on the subject prohibited him engaging the notion of actual equality. BY didn't say things as prettily. Accordingly, he's a bad guy.

Got it.

Share this post


Link to post

quote name='USU78' timestamp='1300736929' post='1208988016'

: I remind the learned gentleman from ANZAC that this BY stuff was begun by his interlocutor posting this two days ago:

Whereupon said interlocutor started arguing that any context provided for BY's statements was inapposite of his post.

Really.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, USU78 (academic-style writing obviously isn't your "thing"). But all is not lost. Make another run at it.

Share this post


Link to post

So . . . Lincoln expressed the same thing, more or less, but did it in "nicer" language, saying merely that his "feelings" on the subject prohibited him engaging the notion of actual equality. BY didn't say things as prettily. Accordingly, he's a bad guy.

Got it.

Uh-huh. That's right. Lincoln "expressed the same thing, more or less"; that is, he used nice language to deny the priesthood to black people.

Yep, you "got it."

Share this post


Link to post

He is saying actions speak louder than words. Venom is in the eye of the beholder. Lincoln did not allow the freedom of slaves in the North or border states. Utah's laws were that if an owner attempted to kill or sleep with a slave, that slave was free. Lincoln was nowhere near such a declaration. Do you get it yet?

Share this post


Link to post

Paul

You need to stop being intellectually dishonest and avoiding the truth of the matter. You are rapidly losing all credibility in front of the facts as they stand.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, USU78 (academic-style writing obviously isn't your "thing"). But all is not lost. Make another run at it.

Try this:

Random Thesis Generator

A sample:

Random Thesis

(Well-formed Gibberish)

Introduction

Now and then, the green bottle of beer gives secret financial aid to another paycheck around a mortician. A burglar around a spider panics, but a purple squid figures out the particle accelerator. If a mastadon hesitantly teaches a wisely frustrating tuba player, then a pork chop around a vacuum cleaner meditates. Now and then, a sandwich toward an apartment building gives lectures on morality to a crankcase for an asteroid. Now and then, the sandwich takes a peek at the pit viper inside a cowboy. When you see the parking lot, it means that a football team inside a bottle of beer gets stinking drunk.

A treacherous power drill

When you see the apartment building defined by a paper napkin, it means that a food stamp trembles. Any mating ritual can pour freezing cold water on the lazily incinerated mastadon, but it takes a real abstraction to teach a federal hockey player. Most people believe that a fairy teaches the chestnut, but they need to remember how thoroughly the skinny satellite starts reminiscing about lost glory.

The muddy CEO

For example, an avocado pit indicates that a highly paid reactor throws an accidentally annoying microscope at a line dancer. When another salty hockey player goes to sleep, a chess board about a cab driver hesitates. If another wedding dress for a fighter pilot competes with an accidentally revered support group, then the blood clot toward a ball bearing takes a coffee break. For example, the razor blade indicates that an ocean inside some cloud formation dances with a globule. The photon beyond some dust bunny tries to seduce a turn signal.

The chestnut

Sometimes a fundraiser goes to sleep, but a molten pit viper always secretly recognizes the asteroid! Now and then, another ADVERB DEFAULT 27 pathetic industrial complex avoids contact with the polar bear. The load bearing industrial complex plays pinochle with a burly ocean. Now and then, a green briar patch plans an escape from a cowboy living with another squid a moldy jersey cow. Any recliner can bestow great honor upon the pine cone, but it takes a real line dancer to dance with a plaintiff inside the submarine.

Conclusions

If the squid reaches an understanding with a photon defined by the graduated cylinder, then a defendant defined by a short order cook trembles. An oil filter recognizes a cowboy for a corporation, but the ball bearing for another fire hydrant derives perverse satisfaction from an asteroid. When a linguistic wedding dress is frightened, a hole puncher makes love to a skinny demon.

Share this post


Link to post

quote name='Jeff K.' timestamp='1300766270' post='1208988180'

Venom is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree, especially when one is attacked by a spitting cobra. :P

Compare the language of BY and Lincoln. BY's words are harsh and his tone is mean-spirited. In contrast, Lincoln's words are measured and civil, and his tone is that of a statesman. Any fair-minded person will readily perceive that.

: Lincoln did not allow the freedom of slaves in the North or border states.

That doesn't change the fact that his executive order resulted in freedom for 3.1 million of the nation's 4 million blacks. Moreover, it was a starting point for the complete elimination of slavery.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...