Brigham Young and extreme racism

[juliann]

BY demonstrated in what he wrote that his opinions are similar to his contemporaries. I believe that in those days if BY, or the KKK, or a slaveholder, or even a lot of abolitionists were to catch a black man with a white woman, the out come would be

[Abulafia]

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.

Juliann, I am going to have to disagree with you there. Racism is racism, whether it is institutionalised or encouraged through religious dogma. I cannot and never will see racism in God. I am learning from this dialogue though. I would be interested in knowing what Marvin Perkins had to say, can you provide a link?

(Mormons weren't being chased by negroes, are you suggesting that they were scapegoats for the persecution [and I know there is more to that issue in the history than I was ever taught in seminary] the lds recieved? I am pretty sure you are not, but that is how it is coming across..)

[koakaipo]

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.

Deborah-"FAIR" did not asser this. Armand MAuss, a Mormon scholar who's position has been quite clear in how he interprets the ban historically did. However, I think if you are going to say he's completely wrong, you should back up with alternate evidence. The guys has devoted decades to scholarship when it comes to Mormonism's history regarding concepts of race and lineage. Please show where his points seem wrong please. Now if your reasoning is that it was you believe it inspired, and that we just don't know, I don't htink you have to explain. What I am getting at though is if you use scriptural reasoning, then you can potentially back yourself into a corner.

David O'McKay is documented as saying that this single verse does not a doctrine or a justification for the ban make, and instead commenting that he ventures that it has to do more with the pre-existence----a take the Brigham Young was adamantly oppossed to and who invoked the Curse of Cain as the reason. Scriptural reasoning also directly contradicts the reasoning given by First Presidency messages regarding the ban in the 20th century. And using the BOA as a reasoning for the ban did occur until decades after the institution of the ban-it was not used as a primary understanding.

Secondly, let's go over the scriptural reasoning clearly, here with Lester Bush's "Mormon Negro Policy" from thebook "Neither White Nor Black(PLEASE read this in it's entirety as it does show the problems with invoking this one scripture to explain a whole practice):"

"Cain's descndeants, who 'were black,' are never again identified after Moses 7:22(an antediluvian time) nor are Cain's brethren who were shut out with him(Gen 5:26, JST). The antediluvian people of Canaan were apprently not black until they fought with the people of Shum(thus are qustionably, if at all, connected with Cain)(Moses 7:; and the JST renders Canaan were apparently not black until they fought with the people of SHum(thus are aquestionably, if at all, connected with Cain)(Moses 7:; and the JST renders Canaan as Cainan, and gives the impression that these were the prophet Enoch's own people(Gen.7:6-10; for Enoch's bacground, Gen. 6:43-44). Nowhere is it stated that Ham married a descendant of the antediluvian people of Canaan. The closest suggestion of this is through reference to Pharaoh, a secendant of Ham and also a descdeant of "Canaanites"(Abr. 1:21), yet the other refereces in the book of Abraham to Canaanites refer to the descendants of Ham's son, Canaan, to whom the Pharaoh could have been related also. All that is said of Ham's wife is that her name was "Egyptus, which in Chaldean signifies that which is forbidden"(Abr.1:23); yet we are told that Ham, shortly before the flood, was of such high standing that he "walked with God"(Moses 8:27). The Pharaoh and his lineage, the only persons identified as being denied the priesthood(ABr. 1:26-27), are minimally identified as descendants of Ham and Egyptus. Only with the Pharaoh is any connection between the descendants of Ham through Egyptus and those through Canaan even suggest, yet the Pharaoh is was HARDLY A "SERVANT OF SERVANTS." Moreover, the Pharaoh is depicted a "WHITE" in Facsimile 3 in the BOA, inobvious contrast to the "BLACK SLAVE BELONGING TO THE PRINCE."

Do you see how tricky it is if you insist on using scriptural reasoning for explaining the priesthood ban? I don't have any problem with someone saying it was inspired and going with the official Mormon stance that "we don't know." But when you begin to give reasonings, that's where people will be able to critique such a stance.

Let me also just include couple words from Hugh Nibley on the matter as quoted in "Neither White NOr Black" as well(p.212):

"Why was Pharoah...denied that priesthood which he 'would fin claim from Noah, thorugh Ham'(1:27)," asks Nibley."Certinaly not becaus of Ham, 'a just man (who) walked with God...' "Rather, he continues it was because he traced his claim through the "matriarchal line" rather thant the "patriarchal." "In all of which," concludes Nibley, "there is no mention of race, though enemies of the Church have declared with shock and outrage that these scriptural passages are proof of Mormon discrimination against blacks."

[juliann]

Juliann, I am going to have to disagree with you there. Racism is racism, whether it is institutionalised or encouraged through religious dogma. I cannot and never will see racism in God. I am learning from this dialogue though. I would be interested in knowing what Marvin Perkins had to say, can you provide a link?

That is different than putting a "right/wrong" label on cultures and societies at any given point in their development simply because we have the advantage of other people's learning. (It is rarely our own accomplishments....we just have books and such that other people wrote. In other words...we would be no different than those we look down upon were we in their shoes).

I see no more point in calling the 19th century "racist" than in calling a century dumb, evil, ridiculous, etc. The term racism did not even exist in that era let alone the concept. To them...it was as scientific as anything we think is scientific is scientific today. And tomorrow...we will be scorned as well. Isn't it much better to simply analyze what happened and why instead of the grunting and pointing going on in this thread?

Anyway, I'm not sure when Perkin's lecture will go up. He talked about how we need to be more straight in our delivery and how inadequate the "It's in the past" type of responses are. He said that black people understand. (He is black and has some leadership position in the So. CA public affairs for the church). What becomes problematic is not what happened...it happened everywhere and blacks know that...it is how we handle it. He put up more "ack" quotes than I have even seen...it appears that our racebaiters are not keeping up.

So we do need to say that this was not done under God's guidance...he obviously allowed it everywhere as he does every act. We need to make sure that we stamp out all of the silly excuses for it that have gotten a foothold in Mormonism and, as Pres. Hinckley admonishes...to stand up for anyone who is victim of bigotry.

(Mormons weren't being chased by negroes, are you suggesting that they were scapegoats? I am pretty sure you are not, but that is how it is coming across..)

Mormons started out being a little too accomodating to blacks and got whacked. They were already under fire and adding an abolitionist stance would have done them in. If you read all of the JoD and history you can see this quite plainly. Mormons themselves were being accused of being "black" (this was the category for the undesirables...it was a social label as well as an ethnic label). This is the sort of thing that has to be understood to have a rational discussion...as well as the nonsense going on in the scientific community as they tried to decide if blacks were part of the human race.

Unfortunately, we have never been able to have a rational discussion with the spitting and pointing that goes on in these threads.

[juliann]

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.

This all depends on how we define "curse". FAIR does not take stands...we just present what is being said. We also had Darius Gray at the conference, the former Genesis President. He wants to have his lineage from Cain and presented scriptures to show a possible connection. Some have a problem with that...some don't.

Perkins presented a long list of LDS scripture that trumps all of this lineage stuff...and scripture is clear. THere is no discrimination. Scripture trumps. We cannot continue to use the OT as an excuse when the Melchezidek priesthood replaced the temple priesthood. At that point, all men are equal in God's eyes...just as our scripture says. It has taken us a long time to get around to seeing this through God's eyes. I can't think of a reason in the world as to why blacks would have anything to do with people who continue to insist there was something "less" about them...even in the past. We need to stop defending this.

[Abulafia]

Juliann, I am going to have to disagree with you there.

[juliann]

Today we would consider the abolitionists as being "racist". That is why this label is so useless. No matter how "enlightened" they were they were segregationists. Today, we consider that the height of racism. We just never look that far because what they did do in comparison to their environment was so remarkable. JS's remarks about blacks were remarkable. But he was also a segregationist. These were the enlightened of the time. BY's laws and appeals to the government to stop the brutality were remarkable for the times. So was the insistence that blacks were God's children rather than another race. But he obviously bought the prevaling belief about the natural inferiority of the black race.

It would be nice if we could remove our cultural blinders when it comes to all of this and analyze the reality of the situation as much as possible through historical records.

[Magyar]

Today we would consider the abolitionists as being "racist". That is why this label is so useless. No matter how "enlightened" they were they were segregationists. Today, we consider that the height of racism. We just never look that far because what they did do in comparison to their environment was so remarkable. JS's remarks about blacks were remarkable. But he was also a segregationist. These were the enlightened of the time. BY's laws and appeals to the government to stop the brutality were remarkable for the times. So was the insistence that blacks were God's children rather than another race. But he obviously bought the prevaling belief about the natural inferiority of the black race.

It would be nice if we could remove our cultural blinders when it comes to all of this and analyze the reality of the situation as much as possible through historical records.

Excellent, excellent, excellent!

My thoughts exactly!

Also, nowhere on this thread has it been mentioned that Joseph Smith actually ordained a black man to the priesthood, hardly the act of someone with a congenital disgust for the race -- nor has it been mentioned that he helped a black resident of Nauvoo pay for emancipation of the man's son.

[Tarski]

Today we would consider the abolitionists as being "racist".

[Abulafia]

Today we would consider the abolitionists as being "racist". That is why this label is so useless. No matter how "enlightened" they were they were segregationists. Today, we consider that the height of racism. We just never look that far because what they did do in comparison to their environment was so remarkable. JS's remarks about blacks were remarkable. But he was also a segregationist. These were the enlightened of the time. BY's laws and appeals to the government to stop the brutality were remarkable for the times. So was the insistence that blacks were God's children rather than another race. But he obviously bought the prevaling belief about the natural inferiority of the black race.

It would be nice if we could remove our cultural blinders when it comes to all of this and analyze the reality of the situation as much as possible through historical records.

But Juliann, I want to agree with you I really do, but what we are talking about here is a dogma bound up with a bow that says that the negro race are unworthy of the mormon priesthood. I understand what Magyar is saying about the black man ordained to the priesthood, but then what does that say about Brigham Young.

My belief is that the early church leaders were utterly wrong in this one instance, no matter how they couched it up as God's doctrine. I think for active believing members the problem becomes, well if the leaders could be wrong doctrinally on this issue, what else could they be wrong on.

But can't there be a place in LDS thinking that says they were wrong on this, but it doesn't mean they were wrong on everything. The whole house of cards doesn't need to come down by admitting error in this once instance?

[koakaipo]

Race is just an interesting thing. As Juliann was saying, abolitionists were awesome to see the injustice and cruelty of slavery, and yet for the most part, folks had a "Not in my backyard" attitude about what to actually do with freed blacks-sending them back to AFrica was a popular solution for many abolitionists as a result. There were some very radical and forward thinking folks who did see the full humanity and potential in other groups of people, but for the most part they were seen as crackpots.

I think the "not in my backyard" deal does imply some of that "social distance" stuff social scientist folks do seem to talk about alot. Where the lines are drawn in terms of what's acceptable for a person in how they relate to others. And you see to this day, there's the magical "8%" figure in real estate number-----I've got to find my references exactly, but basically when a minority population hits 8%, alot of white folks start running for the hills! I

I mean, I think that real estate number talks to social distance and comfortable social distance-some non-white folks are nice to have, but let's keep the proportion low, eh?:)And then race gets mixed with class or "type" alot of times on top of it. Like I'm not white, but I do notice I'm the right "type" of non white, so it's all good, you know? So there's alot of factors involved with prejudging, not just race.

I just have to say "amen" to what Juliann said regarding that speaker. If you are a minority, you tend to be really realistic in terms of what you expect from others in the past regarding race. When you have experienced racism or bigotry, I think in some ways you have more knowledge of the insidious power of it. And you don't have these fluffy expectations as a result. But you do want real talk, and real answers, and not dodging, because that's not meeting me halfway. And that's what it comes down to--at least!!! meeting folks halfway to show there is a true change of heart. As Christ said himself, don't come to Me until you have reconciled with your brothers. That's always been my feeling. Like Julian quoted, it's not what happened so much as how we deal with it now and how we attempt to explain it.

[Refuge]

"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." (Journal of Discourses 10:110)

I have read many similarly disturbing statements by Brigham Young in his Journal of Discourses and yet he is still considered to be a prophet of God by the Mormon church. How can this be so? I would think such things would be openly condemned by a church who supposedly no longer holds to racist doctrines. Of course the problem remains that Young claimed it would "always be so" that the penalty for a white person who mixed their "chosen seed" with th "seed of Cain" would be "death on the spot." It seems problematic that such a statement was made by a prophet of God.

LOL, Dude! They don't want to go over this here...all you'll get is page after page of attacks against you personally.

Drop it for about another half century or so.

[koakaipo]

Hi, sweetie!!!! How are you doing? PM me or email me.....

[Refuge]

I am in agreement with the sentiment here that BY's statements should be held in context with the time period in which he lived. The dude is dead now. His statements alone do not bother me. What bothers me is the lack of consideration of the fact that other GAs have used the pulpit to expound their racist views, and many unwitting followers took notes and took that mess home with them. The issue has not been faced in light of the generational effect that racism has. I don't see the church as this evil orgaization in a white hood, but I do think that some folks are unecessarily fearful of me because of what I look like in this church. And still others are just militantly defensive if you so much as breathe like you want to breach the subject. But they are not alone. Even though many a Christian church has faced their racist pasts, this country as a whole is hiding from itself with regards to race perceptions.

And those who say that racism is a country-wide problem are right. All you have to do is look at the news with what's going on with Katrina. My people loot, caucasians find stuff.

I personally plan to go antagonize a Wal-Mart with my paycheck this weekend.

[Pace Nielsen]

Abulalfia,

But Juliann, I want to agree with you I really do, but what we are talking about here is a dogma bound up with a bow that says that the negro race are unworthy of the mormon priesthood.

No, he didn't say that at all. Rather, he said that God forbad them from having the priesthood due to an action of their forbear. He *never* said it was due to "unworthiness" and expressly *denied* such a doctrine. In fact, he said they would be heirs of salvation and eventually receive the priesthood too (if they remained righteous), and that the curse was a temporary one to test them.

While you may still disagree with Brigham's conclusions, and may still think they are racist (although they weren't for the time period) you will notice the doctrine is significantly less biased and cruel than you portrayed it.

[Refuge]

This must be one of those "it's lineage, not race" arguments (even though the dictionary lists them as synonyms). Pace, if someone is being denied something due to what their forbears did, how is that not deeming them unworthy?

Please explain. Also, many things were said about blacks and the coming life, not all of them were pretty. Tell me, would you like to go to heaven as a servant?

And the problem is not just the ban, and it's not really that anymore. It's the failure on the part of church leadership at ALL levels to squash false doctrine and bad behavior against people of color...that has arisen due to lack of communication on this issue. THAT is a problem...and it stems from folks not wanting to look at the non-white elephant in the living room.

[USU78]

This:

I do think that some folks are unecessarily fearful of me because of what I look like in this church. And still others are just militantly defensive if you so much as breathe like you want to breach the subject.

is refreshingly fair. I quite agree it's going to take time and acclimation for everybody to get to the point they need to be in the Church.

Too much time has been wasted. Let's get on with it.

I was afraid of you Julius.  I don't understand what I was afraid of.  Now I know I was only hating my brother.

- Remember the Titans

[Refuge]

USU, do you think we'll ever be able to just sit down and talk about this? In dealing with this subject both on FAIR and washingtonpost.com years ago, I saw a lot of fear. Many caucasian folks are afraid that everyone is gonna blame them. I'm not out to blame...why? Heck, I'm as mixed as a fruit salad, what good is it gonna do to condemn race? But some folks just don't wanna talk about it, meanwhile, others run amok.

It's on both sides, my brother tells me every time I complain about my job that my problems are "because you're black". I just ignore him, my boss is Korean (same as White to him).

Crack is whack.

[Refuge]

I was afraid of you Julius.

[USU78]

USU, do you think we'll ever be able to just sit down and talk about this?

I'm quite linear and black and white in my thinking.

Fair = good.

Unfair = bad.

You get that, you get me.

[Refuge]

USU, do you think we'll ever be able to just sit down and talk about this?

I'm quite linear and black and white in my thinking.

Fair = good.

Unfair = bad.

You get that, you get me.

Ohhhh!

[Pace Nielsen]

This must be one of those "it's lineage, not race" arguments (even though the dictionary lists them as synonyms). Pace, if someone is being denied something due to what their forbears did, how is that not deeming them unworthy?

Easily. It was MERELY saying that were currently (and not eternally) prohibited, but not because of any wickedness on their part. Pretty easy to understand actually.

By the way, my post had nothing to do with the difference between race and lineage. You might try reading it again slowly, and with a desire to read some good out of it.

[T-Shirt]

Okay, I guess it is time to add my two cents. It is so easy to read a single quote or two and draw a conclusion that is inaccurate. I think all the noise being made about this one quote from Brigham Young is unwarranted. Let me see if I can shed some light that may be of some help.

Let

[juliann]

But Juliann, I want to agree with you I really do, but what we are talking about here is a dogma bound up with a bow that says that the negro race are unworthy of the mormon priesthood.

Not quite. It was more of a "not in my backyard" kinda thing. Almost to a man they said that blacks would eventually have the priesthood...just not "now".

I understand what Magyar is saying about the black man ordained to the priesthood, but then what does that say about Brigham Young.

It says he was a prescient genius in some areas and a man of his time in others. What you are really asking is if prophets can be men of their time. That is another question.

But can't there be a place in LDS thinking that says they were wrong on this, but it doesn't mean they were wrong on everything.  The whole house of cards doesn't need to come down by admitting error in this once instance?

We must be reading different posts. Of course they were "wrong". But what was "right"? A Custer's Last Stand? A group of people who were raised in a plastic bubble with no contact with the prevaling science and racial theory of the day? What they did get right was not driving blacks into separate churches. We now have a chance for reconciliation as we all sit together in one chapel and one meeting...other Protestant religions do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting black and white churches, conventions, associations back together. And they aren't. Evangelicals are having a particularly hard time and the research stats makes them look about like you are painting the early Mormons.

Do you really not get why this is such a hot button issue for anti-Mormons? If we can get our act together we will become a unified church because we are set up that way. It is already happening internationally. Who is joining in Europe? Not the natives! It is the immigrants.

[Pahoran]

Just a run-through of a few points that need to be made.

Juliann previously wrote:

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

To which Mor-Atheist responded:

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

Y'know Atheist, there's always a risk, when pretending to be really obtuse, that you'll actually fool some people.

No, Juliann wasn't asking you to "give proof that this was a true prophecy," she was asking you to demonstrate that Brigham's actions were consistent with the spin you race-baiters are trying to give his words.

That is a very reasonable request, but I can understand why you would prefer to pretend that she had asked something else.

I previously wrote:

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 keeping up the pretense of obtuseness, you responded:

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?

That is not my technique. It is not even a caricature of my technique.

No, the reason why you should care is because you should care about the truth, and the truth is that few if any of Brigham's contemporaries were any more enlightened than he was. Lincoln was not an atheist, but he was certainly a "racist" if by any standards Brigham was.

Besides--if I wanted to embarrass you as an atheist, I'd have mentioned "social darwinism." History shows that not only are there no Christians with a better race relations record than us, there aren't any atheists who have that either.

Which demonstrates the hypocrisy behing your race-baiting filth.

Observer,

you wrote:

So Koakaipo, is my interpretation correct in that Mormon Prophets aren't always speaking as Prophets, even when they declare they are speaking as Prophet?

This is quite irrelevant to your race-baiting filth, since Brigham nowhere "declared that he was speaking as a prophet" in the talk under discussioin.

On that subject, I previously wrote:

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

Answer: no.

And thus the question is settled.

In response to which, you launched into a long rant, thus:

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.

Actually the length of this thread is entirely due to the determination on the part of certain parties to misuse Brigham's words for the bigoted and dishonest purpose of race-baiting.

My argument has nothing to do with the applicability of context. Brigham did not claim to be speaking as a prophet, therefore he wasn't. No honest person is going to argue therefrom that context is no longer relevant.

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.

And the answer is: none of the above.

Brigham did not claim to be speaking as a prophet, therefore he wasn't. Therefore whatever he did or did not say has no bearing upon his prophetic claims.

Which is not really very controversial; only the most rabid anti-Mormons would ever try to claim that it did.

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.

He's not the one wasting our time. The race-baiters are the ones who have done that.

I previously wrote:

Except that the only reason Brigham's statement is such a hot button issue for anti-Mormons like yourself is that you think the words mean something.  You are the one making the accusations; mostly by insinuation, so Juliann has every right to ask you to spell out what you think his statement means.  Just what are you accusing him of?

To which Pokatator responded:

Well I do