Brigham Young and extreme racism

[Mor-Atheist]

Pahoran,

The big point you seem to be missing is that Brigham's "hyperbole" rubbed off onto many other prophets and apostles. Or maybe they missed it too. Isn't it a shame that they appeared to have misunderstood Brigham the same as all of us "anti-mormons" and perpetuated this filth over many years? The problem with your stand is that when you knock down one of these arguments, there are 20 other apostles and prophets ready to be quoted in his place.

[T-Shirt]

In so few words, you are the one insinuating that God is a petty racist here. I'm not sure he'd be pleased with your comments, nor Brigham's.

Observer,

Would you consider the actions promoted in the following verses to be racist? If not, why?

Duet 7

1 WHEN the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

T-Shirt

[koakaipo]

3 boys! Koakaipo, my hat's off to you. I have children myself, and oh how I despise those Wiggles (the kids love 'em, lol)

Anyway, I appreciate your providing me with things to think about. I actually am a former Mormon, not simply a non-mormon. So, I'm familiar with this issue from a believing member's point of view also.

Regarding your comments, you still seem to be saying that a prophet is sometimes speaking as a prophet and sometimes isn't (even at those times he declares a "Law of God"). Wouldn't that make prophets irrelevent? Even when the Prophet says "listen here, this is a LAW of God", we are to second guess, raise eyebrows and search for additional context to interpret what the prophet may have actually meant? Is that also acceptable today, with Prophet Hinckley?

I'm still unclear as to your view of this "death on the spot" quote. I understand your argument that it may not necessarilly be the words from God's literal mouth (more a Biblical interpretation)...while I disagree with your position (I think Brigham worded it exactly as intended), I find it much more plausible than the "protecting slave women from white rapists" fog cloud.

Hmm. I'll have to think about your comments some more. At this point, I really do think Brigham spoke clearly and plainly. It's my view that Brigham intended the words exactly as they were, and wouldn't apologize to any modern apologists, regardless if they're uncomfortable with a declared "Law of God".

Haha, wiggles-I laugh at them all day long in their awkward and high waisted pants, and yet I realize they just cleared like 50 million last year.....

Yeah, gotcha on the former Mormon thing-I think there tends to be a great variety of ways people process stuff in Mormonism. It's very maddening I think for non-Mormons trying to get an official line, cause Mormons, while emphasizing harmony, actually are left to alot of their own devices in terms of testimony and scriptural understandings and theology. And then you got like a bunch of theologies to choose from at that, with different champions. I mean I cop to that-I do think it's relative youth as a religion does result in having a much less set-in-stone view on a lot of understandings within the religion.

Yes, I am saying that prophets, even in public settings, prophets are speaking as prophets and sometimes speaking as men and all that goes along with that. I mentioned previously that leadership style influences how that manifests in different leaders.

JS? Authoritative, but was flexible enough to reconsider previously held notions, this could be seen with race.

BY? Very authoritative, much more cemented in his beliefs, more authoritative in how he expressed himself.

David O'McKay? Very collegiate leadership style, big one counsel with apostles and consensus, very cautious in how he expressed himself publicly--his personal musings reveal much more formed ideas about certain stances and practices that were given reserved commentary in public.

So, I think leadership style is something to take into consideration in terms of public utterances and authoritative communications personally. BY was just very authoritative to me in everything he did, how he related with other apostles, in how expressed himself publicly even.

Now, I think if we acknowledge that sometimes a prophet is speaking as a prophet and as a man, that's more reassuring than thinking he's always a prophet, cause I don't think anyone can be that all the time without being weighed down by their humanity. But where it gets tricky is trying to figure out when it is revelation, when it is inspired counsel, and etc.

I think there is a scriptural abundance regarding prophet fallibility, and I think that's something members should not be afraid to think about ---to humanize the prophet and sustain him, and not worship him.

As for how to discern? I do think prophets make clear distinctions between revelation and counsel alot of the time. I think people can also discern counsel from revelation. And I think scriptures help to back up revelation, while counsel can be harder back up. I understand that by saying the prophet isn't acting as a prophet all of the time could be seen as marginalizing his relevance, but I personally don't see it that way. I think it's grounding the notion of authority and leadership and the notion of a prophet in many ways.

As for death on the spot. I meant that biblical precendence could account for believing that mixing seeds is a cursed thing. Yeah, I don't know, maybe I haven't really heard the concept that I think Zak was talking about so it's hard for me to say exactly. But my understanding of death on the spot was more about protective measures from having the lineage of Cain ever receive the priesthood. Just my take from what I've read about his feelings on this matter. There is alot of elaboration on his part to explain why the lineage of Cain could never hold the priesthood. I don't think "death on the spot" was a notion that was to be carried out, but I think it spoke to the seriousness of the how much the priesthood was to be protected.

As for the law of God thingy-he had a tendency to express such things in an authoritative manner. If he was to be given the credit for the inspiration, I think he didn't have a problem for directly saying so or testifying to it(in the name of Jesus Christ, etc). So by saying law of God, to me personally, it sounds more like he is more than anything directly associating African derived folks with the lineage of Cain more than anything, a lineage that biblically was understood int erms of curses by the audience easily.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

The big point you seem to be missing is that Brigham's "hyperbole" rubbed off onto many other prophets and apostles. Or maybe they missed it too. Isn't it a shame that they appeared to have misunderstood Brigham the same as all of us "anti-mormons" and perpetuated this filth over many years? The problem with your stand is that when you knock down one of these arguments, there are 20 other apostles and prophets ready to be quoted in his place.

You're right, I am missing it.

Please cite your 20 other apostles and prophets all saying that interracial marriage incurs the death penalty. Clearly you anti-Mormons are the only ones who know about this; must be because the Church is "suppressing the information," or something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[koakaipo]

koakaipo

Abu-here's the link for the paper:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html

I agree, good article, I could see myself having dialogue with this guy. I would have asked tougher questions, but hey, what can you do

The only thing I did not like is he seemed to really downplay some of the doctrine, quotes, etc. I don't think dismissing some of those things can be done so easily, and his whole premise was built off of that.

Definitely a step in the right direction though.

Mor-Yes, the imaginary interviewer is quite civil, but.....

I do think that Armand L. Mauss represents some views held within the community, but I also do want to acknowledge that others don't really agree with his line of apologetics either. I just wanted to acknowledge that for some posters who have expressed that to me in the past. I just like his work and his angle as a sociologist and member.

I understand about the dismissals, but I do think his book "All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Concepts of Race and Lineage" does give a more complex approach and analysis of this part of Mormon history. I really think that book is just spot on in terms of explaining the issue of race and lineage within Mormonism historically.

[Observer]

In so few words, you are the one insinuating that God is a petty racist here. I'm not sure he'd be pleased with your comments, nor Brigham's.

Observer,

Would you consider the actions promoted in the following verses to be racist? If not, why?

Duet 7

1 WHEN the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

T-Shirt

Yes. I guess you were interested in an explanation only if I answered "no"?

[Observer]

Observer so then tell me was it Gods will that David biuld the temple or was that merely wishfull thinking on Nathans part?

2 Sam 7

Since Nathan spoke Gods will without consulting the Lord does that make him a "false Prophet"?

Well, yes, I suppose it would if what the prophet was teaching was actually contrary to what the Lord would have us believe. Is this the "Nathan did it too" argument? I suppose only a false prophet would be unable to discern whether or not he was actually speaking the will of God. Is that unfair?

Uh oh. Should we change the definition of false prophet now? Or just ignore the issue. I'm guessing the latter.

[Mor-Atheist]

Pahoran,

And thus we see your anti-Mormon agenda unmasked at last. It isn't enough for you to demonstrate that Brigham had the same sort of opinions as most of his contemporaries (if more enlightened than most.) No, you have to somehow leverage this smear campaign into an attack on the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. Once you've got everyone worked up into a lather over Brigham's "racism", you then try to make an argument similar to "a true prophet would never believe that God holds a view inimical to 21st-century western values."

An argument which is absurd on its face.

But that's the point of all the emotive hype about "racism." You hope that if you can get people worked up enough, they'll swallow the absurdity, don't you?

Please demonstrate all of these "same sort of opinions as most of his contemparies" in regards to people dying on the spot. See, I can be just like you and avoid answering the question.

But I wont.

You threw out some pretty general statements here and that is what I was replying to. You seem to have classified all racism comments as absurd, I was merely pointing out that there were a large number of GA's that gave us plenty of ammo. I am pretty sure you don't really want those quotes...

[T-Shirt]

Yes. I guess you were interested in an explanation only if I answered "no"?

Okay, then do you consider God to be a petty racist?

I am trying to establish an understanding so that I might shed some light on this matter.

I am not sure of your background and current beliefs relating to religion, are you willing to share?

T-Shirt

[Zakuska]

Tell me why nathan got the will of the Lord wrong? Im truley intrested in your understanding.

And while your at it explain Pauls opinion as Scripture then his latter recantations of that opinion.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, it is usually always Mormon rationalizers who bring the "prophets aren't infallible" argument into discussions like this thread.

Which is a statement of fact. And it is usually always anti-Mormon smear-campaigners who mischievously misrepresent this fact as some kind of "rationalisation."

Go back and review the thread in it's entirety. My comments in response to "prophets aren't infallible" and "racism patterns of the day" arguments are entirely appropriate.

What?

You mean context might actually be relevant? Contrary to your libelling of those who want to consult the context of Brigham's statements?

Or is it only you who has the luxury of appealing to context?

Evidently it's not just "Christians"[tm] who have trouble with double standards.

The prophet included the words "Shall I tell you the Law of God..." in his remarks from the pulpit to the Lord's church in the tabernacle.

Excuse me, but he was actually addressing the territorial legislature at the time. Note that it wasn't with any particular legislation in view; it was simply the opening of a session.

Like Deborah, Brigham isn't weaseling on anything. He's speaking clearly and simply stating a "Law of God". Frankly, the paragraph is clear. Perhaps I'm not just being obtuse by reading it as written. Perhaps the difficulty is yours in inserting concepts and explanations that simply aren't there.

I see you choose not to address the question of context. Hardly surprising, really, but I'll have another go:

Do you or do you not accept that, if we were talking about anyone other than a Mormon prophet, the fact that he frequently used hyperbole would be a relevant consideration? Yes or no?

Space for your answer here:_______________________________

Do you or do you not accept that, if we were talking about anyone other than a Mormon prophet, the fact that he subsequently had the opportunity to enact his expressed views into legislation, and did not even try, would be a relevant consideration? Yes or no?

Space for your answer here:_______________________________

And so my comments regarding "false prophet" are mostly rhetorical...I'm just connecting the dots for you.

Oh how very condescending of you. But don't think I'm not grateful. Oddly enough, I am quite capable of "connecting the dots" when it comes to anti-Mormon propaganda. Frequently I do so, and get hammered with indignant scoldings. Since you were kind enough to save me the trouble, you've also saved me the scoldings.

Prophets who declare God's laws in "error" or simply due to personal bigotry are of course, false Prophets.

And you can back this up from scripture, can you?

Otherwise, I see NO scenario where there could be such a thing as a "false" prophet.

Well then, there is clearly a lot you can't see.

I shall now point out that Joseph Smith said, "a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such." The usual anti-Mormon response to that is to argue that he simply must be acting as such when he's speaking from the Tabernacle pulpit to the Church, as you seem to try to imply above; which is actually nonsense, but you cannot then argue that he "must" be acting as a prophet when he's really acting in his role as territorial governor, as he was.

In fact the question of "when is a prophet acting as such" can be answered very simply: when he is reporting truth that the Lord has revealed to him.

Question: does Brigham anywhere say that the Lord revealed that stuff to him?

Answer: no.

And thus the question is settled.

I have yet to read any posters explain how a Prophet is still a true Prophet, while proclaiming "Laws" of God, and speaking FOR GOD (and saying so) that (according to many posters here) aren't actually Laws of God at all, but simply Brigham's personal falibility.

See above. Your problem is that you don't actually believe in prophets at all, so you haven't really thought the matter through. You've just dogmatically committed yourself to the position that if there were to be such a thing as a prophet, Brigham wasn't one. And thus you are not open to any alternative POV on the subject at all.

In my view, I'm simply pointing out to many of you that you are unwittingly marking Brigham Young as a false prophet by your oblivious attitude towards the PROPHET explainging the "LAW OF GOD" (NOT his personal opinions on treatment of slaves). If this sermon is just an example of Brigham's "fallibility", it appears you are rendering God as the fallible one. Brigham's just passing his word along.

Well, that argument simply proves one thing: that you are fallible, too.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

And thus we see your anti-Mormon agenda unmasked at last. It isn't enough for you to demonstrate that Brigham had the same sort of opinions as most of his contemporaries (if more enlightened than most.) No, you have to somehow leverage this smear campaign into an attack on the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. Once you've got everyone worked up into a lather over Brigham's "racism", you then try to make an argument similar to "a true prophet would never believe that God holds a view inimical to 21st-century western values."

An argument which is absurd on its face.

But that's the point of all the emotive hype about "racism." You hope that if you can get people worked up enough, they'll swallow the absurdity, don't you?

Please demonstrate all of these "same sort of opinions as most of his contemparies" in regards to people dying on the spot.

Since it has yet to be established--and in fact has been disproved to my entire satisfaction--that Brigham actually thought anyone should "die on the spot," that is, of course, not what I am talking about, and has nothing to do with the opinions he shared with most of his contemporaries, which is all you've really managed to demonstrate.

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, was not only in favour of compensated emancipation (like Joseph Smith) but also of repatriating freed slaves back to Africa, so that America wouldn't be saddled with them?

See, I can be just like you and avoid answering the question.

This is known as an "oxymoron."

You threw out some pretty general statements here and that is what I was replying to. You seem to have classified all racism comments as absurd, I was merely pointing out that there were a large number of GA's that gave us plenty of ammo. I am pretty sure you don't really want those quotes...

Ooooh, I'm quaking in my boots!

Oh no! Not MEP talking to some BYU teachers in the 1950's! I couldn't stand it!

Not JFS using the word "darkies!" I think I'd have to leave the Church if someone were to quote that!

Not ETB thinking the "Red Peril" had infiltrated the Civil Rights movement! Aaaargh!

Get a grip, Atheist. Do you really think we haven't heard the same tired old recycled chestnuts a score or more times already?

The arrogance of you imagining you can scare me just by dropping these hints is risible.

But I must thank you for one thing. You've admitted that you aren't the least bit interested in getting to the truth; you are simply looking for "ammo" to use against the Church of Jesus Christ.

This kind of candour is most refreshing, given that the standard party line from your co-anti-religionists is that you are all engaged in an Impartial and Rigorous Search for the TRVTH.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Observer]

Pahoran, I'm actually running short on time, but I'll make a quick comment or two, and elaborate later.

Question: does Brigham anywhere say that the Lord revealed that stuff to him?

Answer: no.

And thus the question is settled.

Oh yes...settled very nicely. That specific statement clearly is not found in the sermon. What this does for your "context" arguments, I'm not sure...but I'll play along by your rules (Not found in the text = NOT applicable...question settled). I just wish you had set the groundrules at the beginning of this thread. It would have been so many pages shorter.

So may I presume that the "settled" verdict is that Brigham Young claimed the capability to explain the true "Law of God" regarding the "African race", when in reality, he had no such ability. He never claimed the Lord "revealed" the Law to him, and so he was just making this stuff all up. Not official from God. Not the "Law of God". Brigham was just 'leaking' from the mouth, making bold statements and explanations of the "Law of God" that clearly did not come from the Lord.

So, the verdict is that

Brigham Young was NOT a racist (because more context is needed, to be searched for outside the quoted sermon).

or

Brigham Young was NOT declaring a true "Law of God" (because he never stated that God revealed it to him and didn't include specific details in the text). Incidentally, what would be the context I should be looking for here, playing by YOUR rules? Hmmm, perhaps the fact it is the PROPHET of GOD declaring and explaining a LAW OF GOD? That wouldn't be an example of "context" you like to use, would it?

or

Or better yet, Brigham Young WAS just a hyperbolic racist who would 'run at the mouth' sometimes, boldly proclaiming and attributing racist "opinion" as "Law of God" that doesn't actually exist? But many people in the country were racist at the time also, so question settled.

Is that correct? If so, it's a shame he wasted all of our time, pretending to explain a Law of God that isn't actually there. Just a shame.

[Mor-Atheist]

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, was not only in favour of compensated emancipation (like Joseph Smith) but also of repatriating freed slaves back to Africa, so that America wouldn't be saddled with them?

And I care why? Is this supposed to be some type of info that makes an atheist quiver since you can't use your standard "look at how messed up the prophets are in the bible" technique?

This is known as an "oxymoron."

Or we can remove the O2 and we have Pahoran.

Ooooh, I'm quaking in my boots!

Oh no! Not MEP talking to some BYU teachers in the 1950's! I couldn't stand it!

Not JFS using the word "darkies!" I think I'd have to leave the Church if someone were to quote that!

Not ETB thinking the "Red Peril" had infiltrated the Civil Rights movement! Aaaargh!

Get a grip, Atheist. Do you really think we haven't heard the same tired old recycled chestnuts a score or more times already?

The arrogance of you imagining you can scare me just by dropping these hints is risible.

But I must thank you for one thing. You've admitted that you aren't the least bit interested in getting to the truth; you are simply looking for "ammo" to use against the Church of Jesus Christ.

Really, I stated that because I knew that you were familiar with every one of them. There is no need to go there and watch you take more character shots with a touch of your flawless opinion mixed in.

The arrogance of you imagining you can scare me just by dropping these hints is risible.

As stated, I would have to live under a rock to not know that you have already heard these. As for this giving you a rise, I would have figured the sound of your own voice would be the only thing that would do that...

I hope this helps you see how your posts look to other people....

Edited to save my chance at humor....

[awyatt]

This is known as an "oxymoron."

Or we can remove the H2O and we have Pahoran.

Does it bother you when you don't get your quips right? (I know it bothers me when it happens to me. ) You do know that H2O is water, right? If you were thinking of removing the "oxy" and thereby calling Pahoran a "moron," you would need to remove the O or O2.

If I claimed that you were "one consonant short of a Mormon," then you and Pahoran would be the same, right?

-Allen

[Mor-Atheist]

Ouch, and another try at humor falls flat on it's face due to me ditching Chemistry class....

[Dunamis]

Does anyone have anything new to add to this squabble? If not move on. If you need a moving truck I'm more than willing to assist anyone.

[Pokatator]

A few comments, the first paragraph and second paragraph in the quote provided by Zakuska is about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The third paragraph is about the Civil War, the north and south.

[Abulafia]

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

from the link Kaokaipo provided.... http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html

I think that is about as close as anyone is going to get to saying, hey folks they got it wrong.

[Spiceman]

(Mark 7:25-27.)

25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Sounded pretty harsh didn't it, perhaps what Christ said could be considered as racist! I think not but it would be very easy to twist those words. And yet I don't believe many in here would attempt to assert Christ was racist. Julliann gave a paragraph of Brighams that was far from racist to match up with the initial quote but it's amazing how many ignored it.....

My thoughts are, there is no good reason to dredge up the initial argument especially in the way it was done. It didn't seem to be a genuine question but more an attempt to belittle. Anyway, each to their own.

[Abulafia]

(Mark 7:25-27.)

25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Sounded pretty harsh didn't it, perhaps what Christ said could be considered as racist! I think not but it would be very easy to twist those words. And yet I don't believe many in here would attempt to assert Christ was racist. Julliann gave a paragraph of Brighams that was far from racist to match up with the initial quote but it's amazing how many ignored it.....

My thoughts are, there is no good reason to dredge up the initial argument especially in the way it was done. It didn't seem to be a genuine question but more an attempt to belittle. Anyway, each to their own.

Hi Spiceman,

Truthfully, we really don't have for sure, any of the original sayings of Jesus.

The evidence of the Early Christian Fathers indicates that they themselves tended to quote from the Pauline Epistles before the gospels as written documents, and tended not to refer to the gospels in the format in which we have them today, this has led some scholars to suggest that the gospels originally were probably in oral form and that when they were written down, there probably were later interpolations, personal interpretations and so forth especially as early christianity took on a more Greek and Roman flavour.

This link by FF Bruce is quite interesting

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbr...li/ntdocc04.htm

as is this one by Richard Carrier

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric.../NTcanon.html#I

[Deborah]

I think that is about as close as anyone is going to get to saying, hey folks they got it wrong.

And I think Fair is wrong on this. The Priesthood is not a right for anyone who claims it. It always has been limited by certain requirements. Abraham 1:26-27 clearly states that this particular Pharaoh was of that lineage by which he could not have the right of the Priesthood. Indeed it speaks of him being cursed pertaining to the Priesthood. Ezra 2:62 (OT) likewise references those who because of their genealogy were "as polluted, put from the priesthood."

The people of Moses were denied the higher priesthood and ordinances because of their actions. The whole world was denied the priesthood from the time of the Apostasy until the Restoration. Even today women do no have the priesthood. And even among those who can obtain the priesthood there are requirements that must be met first. It is not a right to anyone who wants it; it is a responsibility with the purpose of administering to the rest of the world.

To claim that BY was a product of his time and therefore witheld the Priesthood to certain people because of these prejudices is just plain false. BY was ahead of his time in many ways. But he was a strict doctrinarian. By making such a claim of Brigham Young, you are making the same claim of all the prophets who followed up to Pres. Kimball. Now the prophets may not have known why God made such restrictions, but that doesn't mean they only went along with it because of tradition, which is essentially what the apologists are saying.

At the time of President Kimball there were a number of black members and the numbers were increasing. There was a group in Africa imploring the church to send missionaries and baptise them (their leader had found a Book of Mormon). Pres. Kimball seeing the righteousness and valiancy of these devoted saints spent many hours in the temple pleading with the Lord to open up the priesthood to all worthy males. Why would he do that if this wasn't previously ordained of the Lord? The Lord answered his prayers and in 1978 we received the very significant revelation on priesthood. I remember that announcement well and have recorded it in my journal along with my joy as I knew some of these faithful black members.

What you might ask yourselves is why would these people denied the priesthood still be faithful members and endure that stigma. It is because they had received a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel. No one can say why the priesthood was denied for so long. We do know that certain High Priests were foreordained before the world was; it is an easy extrapolation, which some don't like to make, that there were those who were foreordained for a time to not have that responsibility. That doesn't mean they were less valiant or that God loved them less but it was for a purpose that we may some day understand.

God calls whom He will call. He chooses whom to bestow his covenant blessings on. When he does make that call it is a grave responsibility on those who are called. They are messengers and servants and certain things are required of them. Some people even today are not ready for those responsibilities.

Those who continue to take quotes out of context in order to incite debate and dissension are acting despicably. There are many things we don't know. We can surmise and debate but the truth is the truth and will be revealed at the proper time.

[Magyar]

A few comments, the first paragraph and second paragraph in the quote provided by Zakuska is about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The third paragraph is about the Civil War, the north and south.

[Abulafia]

I think that is about as close as anyone is going to get to saying, hey folks they got it wrong.

And I think Fair is wrong on this. The Priesthood is not a right for anyone who claims it. It always has been limited by certain requirements. Abraham 1:26-27 clearly states that this particular Pharaoh was of that lineage by which he could not have the right of the Priesthood. Indeed it speaks of him being cursed pertaining to the Priesthood. Ezra 2:62 (OT) likewise references those who because of their genealogy were "as polluted, put from the priesthood."

The people of Moses were denied the higher priesthood and ordinances because of their actions. The whole world was denied the priesthood from the time of the Apostasy until the Restoration. Even today women do no have the priesthood. And even among those who can obtain the priesthood there are requirements that must be met first. It is not a right to anyone who wants it; it is a responsibility with the purpose of administering to the rest of the world.

To claim that BY was a product of his time and therefore witheld the Priesthood to certain people because of these prejudices is just plain false. BY was ahead of his time in many ways. But he was a strict doctrinarian. By making such a claim of Brigham Young, you are making the same claim of all the prophets who followed up to Pres. Kimball. Now the prophets may not have known why God made such restrictions, but that doesn't mean they only went along with it because of tradition, which is essentially what the apologists are saying.

At the time of President Kimball there were a number of black members and the numbers were increasing. There was a group in Africa imploring the church to send missionaries and baptise them (their leader had found a Book of Mormon). Pres. Kimball seeing the righteousness and valiancy of these devoted saints spent many hours in the temple pleading with the Lord to open up the priesthood to all worthy males. Why would he do that if this wasn't previously ordained of the Lord? The Lord answered his prayers and in 1978 we received the very significant revelation on priesthood. I remember that announcement well and have recorded it in my journal along with my joy as I knew some of these faithful black members.

What you might ask yourselves is why would these people denied the priesthood still be faithful members and endure that stigma. It is because they had received a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel. No one can say why the priesthood was denied for so long. We do know that certain High Priests were foreordained before the world was; it is an easy extrapolation, which some don't like to make, that there were those who were foreordained for a time to not have that responsibility. That doesn't mean they were less valiant or that God loved them less but it was for a purpose that we may some day understand.

God calls whom He will call. He chooses whom to bestow his covenant blessings on. When he does make that call it is a grave responsibility on those who are called. They are messengers and servants and certain things are required of them. Some people even today are not ready for those responsibilities.

Those who continue to take quotes out of context in order to incite debate and dissension are acting despicably. There are many things we don't know. We can surmise and debate but the truth is the truth and will be revealed at the proper time.

Sorry Deborah,

Absolute poppycock.

I wonder what modern or ancient Jews would think of the LDS take on the Levitical and Melchizedek Priesthood.

I think FAIR got as close to getting it right as anyone, and the quote was actually from Bruce R McConkie, are you saying he got it wrong?

[juliann]

from the link Kaokaipo provided.... http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html

I think that is about as close as anyone is going to get to saying, hey folks they got it wrong.

Marvin Perkins spoke at the FAIR conference. He made much more forceful comments. I just don't think that "right/wrong" plays into this anymore than the science of the day does. It is just the way it was. To expect perfection from only those Mormons when they were being chased beyond the edge of civilization by those who created the problem is pathetic.