Brigham Young and extreme racism

[Zakuska]

Pahoran,

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.

This is kind of a moot point when in the very sermon and within six paragraphs that this was Given Brigham says...

I am a human being, and I have the care of human beings. I wish to save life, and have no desire to destroy life. If I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood. The people abroad do not generally understand this, but they will. Like Paul, they do that they would not do, and leave undone that they would do because of the sin that reigns in their members. The nations of the world may apply this same text to their own case. They want to do something, but what to do rightly they do not find.

JOD 10:110

http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/V...JDvol10-24.html

He says just the opposite of what he is accused of saying.

[Pahoran]

Hi GIMR, long time no see.

I'm glad you haven't dropped us altogether.

You should know that Benji, rather like many (most) who bring this issue up, doesn't give a rat's behind about people, including black people; if you look at his posting history, you'll quickly discover that he's only interested in whatever mud he can sling. He's started thread after thread after thread pushing all the usual anti-Mormon trash; this is just one more of them.

I know this is a very emotional issue for you, but if you can keep an even keel, I'm sure you have some very valuable things to say. Although, given the level of contention in this thread, maybe it would be best on the Fellowship forum.

Once again, may I remind you that not everyone in the Church is scared of what you look like (unless you look like Sitiveni Sivivatu.) Come on down here, you'll blend right in!

Warmest regards,

Pahoran

[Observer]

Pahoran, it really does become evident that your argument is weak when you resort to personal attacks.

In my view, you would have been much better off using the old "Journal of Discourses aren't approved or corrected - and so ignore them" argument.

You can cry "race baiter". "dishonest race baiter" or "dishonest race baiter filth" all you want. It doesn't change one word Brigham Young spoke. I, along with many others, read the words exactly as written....niether taking away nor adding anything. You haven't even conceded that on first glance, the words look very bad (or something reasonably similar). No, your tactic is that anyone who could possibly interpret his plainly worded remarks as inappropriate, racist, hurtful and attributing them directy to God (allowing no argument) in any shape or form -- that person is simply dishonest. In doing so, I think your dishonesty is quite apparent. These words of Brigham are upsetting and concerning to most reasonable people today. And before you pipe up about "race relations of the day" or "racism didn't exist back then", the remarks are upsetting BECAUSE Brigham stated they were the "Law of God" (basically God's remarks. ie: the Truth).

I would never intentionally label you "dishonest" just because your view is different from mine. While reading your posts, I usually feel like I should sit on my hands to avoid typing responses of a personal attack nature. Apparently, you have no such self control. Everyone either agrees with your interpretation, or they are "dishonest race baiters" spewing "filth". That sounds reasonable...really.

I wonder if this "Law of God" quote were to be reviewed by a majority of the people of the world, and they found no reason to give Brigham Young the spinning, "context" searching, and translate-super-code-into-plain-language service you seem to be providing for him --- would they all similarly become "dishonest race-baiters"??? Would they scratch their heads and say "Gee, I wonder what he meant...it couldn't possibly be anything negative, could it???" I'd be curious to know if they read the paragraph as written and came away with exactly the impression Brigham Young had intended: "God considers RACE MIXING with blacks a very serious offense. So much so, that he decrees DEATH ON THE SPOT." If (hypothetically) a majority of uninterested third-parties were to deduce that Brigham Young was a 'God makes my racism legitimate' type of racist, would they all suddenly transform into "dishonest race baiting" filthy anti-mormons as well?

Ah, I almost forgot. That would fit into the 'more persecution=more truth' philosophy nicely...wouldn't it.

Incidentally, I find it quite humorous that you find the idea "not controversial" that a "true" Prophet of God's "true" church could stand and explain a "Law of God" - yet you seem to imply these words actually should be interpreted as "ignore this man now...wait for Thus Sayeth the Lord".

For all the defending you do of Brigham Young, that is quite an arrogant and oblivious position for you to take. It doesn't matter what the prophet of God says, unless he prefaces his comments appropriately, he might as well be a goat herder spouting his own opinion.

I can see clearly through the fog cloud called "context" here. The clouded "filth" (to coin a phrase) seems to be "dishonest" denial and rationalization of a clearly-worded sermon applying racism in the name of God. Nothing less, nothing more. Using the convoluted "context" rationalizing found on this board, I could just as easily transform Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation into a vile KKK recruiting leaflet. Using your method, I just pull "context" from wherever I can find it, and sometimes, when it's not even there at all. Accuse anyone of reading Lincoln's words straight-forward and as written as "slave worshipers" or similar and PRESTO: I have created a whole new concept opposite from what Lincoln probably intended. Now I'll have to get to insulting anyone else in the world crazy enough to disagree with my open-ended interpretation.

But thank you for confirming one thing for me: Brigham's 'God says don't MIX with Africans' filth is NOT the "Law of God". It seems to me that God's "true" prophets shouldn't be proclaiming "Laws of God" that don't actually exist (according to you). I always knew Brigham Young was really talking from you-know-where on this one. It seems we agree.

[T-Shirt]

I wonder if this "Law of God" quote were to be reviewed by a majority of the people of the world, and they found no reason to give Brigham Young the spinning, "context" searching, and translate-super-code-into-plain-language service you seem to be providing for him --- would they all similarly become "dishonest race-baiters"???

Observer,

Did you read my post above where I explain Brigham's "Law of God"?

T-Shirt

[Moksha]

Why would anyone want a racist God? The Church is expending a great deal of effort bringing the Gospel of Jesus to everyone. Many of those folks would think twice about joining a Church that still defends racism. Whose side are you truly on, the Lord's or the Klan's?

Deal with it.

[Zakuska]

We complain of the barbarity of the red men for killing innocent men, women, and children, especially for killing women and children. They are to blame for this. But remember that they are savages, and that it is an usage among them to kill the innocent for acts of the guilty.

I will ask every person who is acquainted with the history of the colonization of the Continent of North and South America, if they ever knew any colony of whites to get along any better with their savage neighbors than the inhabitant's of Utah have done. Talk about making treaties with the Indians! Has there been any one treaty with the Indians fulfilled in good faith by the Government? If there is one, I wish you would let me know. But we call them savages, while at the same time the whites too often do as badly as they have done, and worse, when difference of intelligence and training are taken into account. This has been so in almost every case of difficulty with the red skins. When soldiers have pounced upon these poor, ignorant, low, degraded, miserable creatures, mention a time, if you can, when they have spared their women and children. They have indiscriminately massacred the helpless, the blind, the old, the infant, and the mother.

I am a human being, and I have the care of human beings. I wish to save life, and have no desire to destroy life. If I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood. The people abroad do not generally understand this, but they will. Like Paul, they do that they would not do, and leave undone that they would do because of the sin that reigns in their members. The nations of the world may apply this same text to their own case. They want to do something, but what to do rightly they do not find.

We have not only the man of sin to contend with, but also the outside pressure. Now then, what should we say concerning this people? I will answer. There has never been a time or circumstance since this Territory was organized, but what the civil law has reigned triumphantly in the hearts and acts of this people. The outside pressure now is that this people, called the Latter-day Saints, are secessionists in their feelings, and alien to the Constitution and institutions of our country. This is entirely false. There is not another people upon the face of the earth that could have borne what we have, and still remain as loyal to our brethren as we have been and are. They might be displeased with some of the acts of the administrators of the law, but not with the Constitutional laws and institutions of the Government.

This people are filled with patience and long suffering, clinging to the institutions bequeathed to us by our fathers as closely and as tenaciously as ever babe clung to the Maternal breast, and we would that the Government had always been so wisely administered as to bind the best feelings of the people together, and to create and still continue to create a union instead of alienation. The affections of the masses of American citizens,-both of the people in the North and in the South, are alienated from each other, and they are divided. We would it could be otherwise, but this is the result of the acts of leading politicians of our nation. When the people's affections are interwoven with a Republican government administered in all its purity, if the administrators act not in virtue and truth it is but natural that the people become disaffected with mal-administration, and divide and sub-divide into parties, until the body politic is shivered to pieces. There is no other platform that any government can stand upon and endure, but the platform of truth and virtue.

What can we do? We can serve God, and mind our own business; keep our power dry, and be prepared for every emergency to which we may be exposed, and sustain the civil law to which we are subject. We have an adjudicator of the law in this Judicial District who has been here some eight or ten years. Has he found any difficulty or trouble in the performance of his official acts in this district, which we may say is the brain, the lungs, the vitals of the whole Territory? Has he met with any difficulty in administering the civil law here? He has not, except in the case where tyrants have sought to interrupt the even course and administration of it. Those who aim to soar to power and fame by taking such a course, pluck out the pinions of their own wings, and rob themselves of the glory and power which they so earnestly seek.

We have our own difficulties to encounter as a people, arising from influences that cannot be fully comprehended by those who are not of us and are not living with us. As for offering refutations to charges made against us, it would be impossible to keep pace with the thousands of freshly invented falsehoods that the powers spiritual and the powers temporal would produce to feed the credulity of the ignorant masses. Bunyan says that it requires a legion of devils to watch one Christian; it would require a legion of refutations to keep pace with one infernal liar, therefore we say, "lie on, falsify every thing you want to falsify, and say what you please; there is a God in Israel, and if you have not yet learned it, you will learn it."

Some of my friends and brethren have lately thought that there is an influence being got up against us. I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for any influence that our officials here, who are operating against this people, have in Washington. If their true characters were only known there, their influence would be devoid of weight in the mind of any right thinking man. I am in no way concerned about what they can do against us. I wish one course to be pursued by this people, and all the rest will be right. If they will walk faithfully in the path of their duty, in uprightness before God, clinging to right, and so conducting themselves that no being in the Heavens, on the earth, under the earth, or in hell, can say in truth that they are guilty of any unjust or wicked action committed knowingly, all will be right. God rules in the Heavens, and he does his pleasure among the inhabitants of the earth, he causes victory to perch here, and defeat and disgrace there, as he will, and contending armies know not the cause of their victory or their defeat. It is God who rules.

We are in the midst of these mountains, and we have good and salutary laws to govern us. We have our Constitutional laws and our Territorial laws; we are subject to these laws, and always expect to be, for we love to be. If there is any man among us who has violated any constitutional law, try the law upon him, and let us see whether there is any virtue in it, before we try the strong arm of despotism and tyranny. I stand for Constitutional law, and if any transgress, let them be tried by it, and, if guilty, suffer its penalty.

In 1857 it is estimated that eleven thousand troops were ordered here; some seven thousand started for this place, with several thousand hangers on. They came into this Territory when a company of emigrants were traveling on the south route to California. Nearly all of the Company were destroyed by the Indians. That unfortunate affair has been laid to the charge of the whites. A certain judge that was then in this Territory wanted the whole army to accompany him to Iron county to try the whites for the murder of that company of emigrants. I told Governor Cumming that if he would take an unprejudiced judge into the district where that horrid affair occurred, I would pledge myself that every man in the regions round about should be forthcoming when called for, to be condemned or acquitted as an impartial, unprejudiced judge and jury should decide; and I pledged him that the court should be protected from any violence or hindrance in the prosecution of the laws; and if any were guilty of the blood of those who suffered in the Mountain Meadow massacre, let them suffer the penalty of the law; but to this day they have not touched the matter, for fear the Mormons would be acquitted from the charge of having any hand in it, and our enemies would thus be deprived of a favorite topic to talk about, when urging hostility against us. "The Mountain Meadow massacre! Only think of the Mountain Meadow massacre!!" is their cry from one end of the land to the other.

In 1857 it is estimated that eleven thousand troops were ordered here; some seven thousand started for this place, with several thousand hangers on. They came into this Territory when a company of emigrants were traveling on the south route to California. Nearly all of the Company were destroyed by the Indians. That unfortunate affair has been laid to the charge of the whites. A certain judge that was then in this Territory wanted the whole army to accompany him to Iron county to try the whites for the murder of that company of emigrants. I told Governor Cumming that if he would take an unprejudiced judge into the district where that horrid affair occurred, I would pledge myself that every man in the regions round about should be forthcoming when called for, to be condemned or acquitted as an impartial, unprejudiced judge and jury should decide; and I pledged him that the court should be protected from any violence or hindrance in the prosecution of the laws; and if any were guilty of the blood of those who suffered in the Mountain Meadow massacre, let them suffer the penalty of the law; but to this day they have not touched the matter, for fear the Mormons would be acquitted from the charge of having any hand in it, and our enemies would thus be deprived of a favorite topic to talk about, when urging hostility against us. "The Mountain Meadow massacre! Only think of the Mountain Meadow massacre!!" is their cry from one end of the land to the other.

"Come, let us make war on the Mormons, for they burnt government property." And what was the government doing there with their property? They were coming to destroy the Mormons, in violation of every right principle of law and justice. A little of their property was destroyed, and they were left to gnaw, not a file, but dead cattle's bones. I was informed that one man brought five blood hounds to hunt the Mormons in the mountains, and that the poor devil had to kill them and eat them before spring to save himself from starving to death, and that he was fool enough to acknowledge it afterwards in this city. This is the kind of outside pressure we have to meet with. Who wanted the army of 1857 here? Who sent for them? Liars, thieves, murderers, gamblers, whoremasters, and speculators in the rights and blood of the Mormon people cried to government, and government opened its ears, long and broad, saying, "I hear you, my children, lie on, my faithful sons Brocchus, Drummond and Co.," and so they did lie on until the parent sent an army to use up the Mormons. Now I say, for the consolation of all my brethren and sisters, they cannot do it; and that is worse to them than all the rest; they cannot do it.

I wonder if anyone has even took the time to read the entire talk and witness BY's use of hyperbole.

[Observer]

I wonder if this "Law of God" quote were to be reviewed by a majority of the people of the world, and they found no reason to give Brigham Young the spinning, "context" searching, and translate-super-code-into-plain-language service you seem to be providing for him --- would they all similarly become "dishonest race-baiters"???

Observer,

Did you read my post above where I explain Brigham's "Law of God"?

T-Shirt

Hi T-Shirt. Yes, I did read your comments. I find the racism "our seed" and "their seed" concepts of the Bible to be an example of how -not- to live one's life. I don't see the examples in the Bible (nor Brigham Young) regarding race and "seed" to be the way it 'ought to be', but and example of something wrong that needs improvement.

I know you meant well, but "You chosen seed don't marry black Africans" doesn't sound much better than "You white men don't mix with black Africans" does it? This "mixing seed" talk has really started to aggravate me. It's as if we were discussing string beans in a grubby garden rather than living, breathing human beings (children of God) with more melanin in their skin.

Ancient views of race and skin color are so unfortunate. I don't use the Bible as a model in this regard. Sorry. It's my disobedient rebeliousness showing.

[Observer]

Why would anyone want a racist God? The Church is expending a great deal of effort bringing the Gospel of Jesus to everyone. Many of those folks would think twice about joining a Church that still defends racism. Whose side are you truly on, the Lord's or the Klan's?

Deal with it.

Moksha, now you've gone too far.

This whole "our seed" "their seed" "cursed seed" "african race" concept is so sad. Many years in the future, it'll be seen for what it is: inherited melanin levels (my not so sophisticated definition). They'll be wondering -- what WERE they thinking?!?!?

So unfortunate.

[T-Shirt]

I wonder if this "Law of God" quote were to be reviewed by a majority of the people of the world, and they found no reason to give Brigham Young the spinning, "context" searching, and translate-super-code-into-plain-language service you seem to be providing for him --- would they all similarly become "dishonest race-baiters"???

Observer,

Did you read my post above where I explain Brigham's "Law of God"?

T-Shirt

Hi T-Shirt. Yes, I did read your comments. I find the racism "our seed" and "their seed" concepts of the Bible to be an example of how -not- to live one's life. I don't see the examples in the Bible (nor Brigham Young) regarding race and "seed" to be the way it 'ought to be', but and example of something wrong that needs improvement.

I know you meant well, but "You chosen seed don't marry black Africans" doesn't sound much better than "You white men don't mix with black Africans" does it? This "mixing seed" talk has really started to aggravate me. It's as if we were discussing string beans in a grubby garden rather than living, breathing human beings (children of God) with more melanin in their skin.

Ancient views of race and skin color are so unfortunate. I don't use the Bible as a model in this regard. Sorry. It's my disobedient rebeliousness showing.

I think you missed my point. The question was raised by you and others repeatedly of where Brigham Young got his idea of the "Law of God". I showed you, and it is biblical. It was not some crazy idea that Brigham conjured up. I am not expecting you to agree with him, but I think you can quit complaining about, "death on the spot" now that you know where he got it from and his intent in using it.

T-Shirt

[Pahoran]

Observer,

you ranted:

Everyone either agrees with your interpretation, or they are "dishonest race baiters" spewing "filth".

If you weren't too bone lazy to make the slightest effort to be at all observant, Observer, you'd recognise the "filth" bit as a deliberate echo of one of your fellow race-baiters, who nastily described Brigham's remarks as "disgusting racist filth." I'm sorry if it hurts having your hate-propaganda dished back at you; but deal with it.

The bottom line: there is no significant group whose 19th-century race relations look good by today's standards. The intentional use of the presentist fallacy is either apallingly ignorant or inexcusably dishonest; but in either case, it is utterly hypocritical. Likewise, claiming that a prophet is acting as a prophet any time he opens his mouth and says the G-word is also either apallingly ignorant or inexcusably dishonest.

And it doesn't matter how many "disinterested" parties leap to conclusions similar to yours, based upon superficial glances at the evidence and uncritical acceptance of your race-baiting, it would indeed still be a reflection of either their ignorance or their dishonesty, and certainly of their hypocrisy.

Race-baiting is no less vile than the racism it pretends to despise. Live with it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Observer has missed another point...

Joseph Smith, in forty-seven prosecutions was never proven guilty of one violation of the laws of his, country. They accused him of treason, because he would not fellowship their wickedness. Suppose the land should be cleansed from its filthiness and the law of God should predominate, if a man or woman should be found who had corrupted themselves and thereby become diseased, that man or woman would be placed by themselves, as the lepers were anciently, never more to commune with the human family. Purify your flesh and blood, your spirits, your habitations and your country, and then you will be pure before God. This change has got to be before this earth will be taken back into a celestial atmosphere.

Find fault with me because I have wives! They would corrupt every wife I have, if they had the power; and then they cry to the government, "You had better do something with the Mormons; they are deceitful and disloyal!!" I am disloyal to their sins and filthiness. Cleanse your hearts and the whole person, and make yourselves as pure as the angels, and then I will fellowship you.

I say to every man and woman in this community, suffer not your affections to wander after that which is unholy; do not lust after gold, nor the things of this world. Sanctify yourselves before your God and before one another, until you are pure outside and in and all around you, and see that you faithfully perform every duty.

Now, as we are accused of secession, my counsel to this congregation is to secede, what from? From the Constitution of the United States? No. From the institutions of our country? No. Well then, what from? From sin and the practice thereof. That is my counsel to this congregation and to the whole world.

May God bless everybody that wishes well to his kingdom on the earth. Amen.

[AKS]

The bottom line: there is no significant group whose 19th-century race relations look good by today's standards. 

We're not talking about significant groups of the time, we're talking about a man who claimed to be a mouth piece of God. It is not unrealistic to expect such a person to be more in-tune and sensitive with the potential of an entire race.

The intentional use of the presentist fallacy is either apallingly ignorant or inexcusably dishonest; but in either case, it is utterly hypocritical.

Edit: Nevermind. I found the LDS definition.

Likewise, claiming that a prophet is acting as a prophet any time he opens his mouth and says the G-word is also either apallingly ignorant or inexcusably dishonest.

I think YOU are the one being dishonest (and I mean the in the literal sense). When a prophet stands at the pulpit and claims to preach the law of God, you would have to be "apallingly (sic) ignorant or inexcusably dishonest" to not comprehend it as such.

[Tarski]

Brigham did not claim to be speaking as a prophet, therefore he wasn't.

1. This is a non sequiter. It does not follow from the fact that he didn't say "I speak here as a prophet" that he wasn't speaking as a prophet.

e.g. Just because I don't say that I am speaking as a father to my son doesn't mean that I am not doing so.

2. Can I ignore all words of prophets that were not prefaced with "I am speaking as a prophet" or something similar? Has GHB ever said that?

3. It is quit clear that BY several times indicated that his words were to be taken as scripture in any such context.

4. When a self proclaimed prophet says "THIS IS THE LAW OF GOD" how is it plausible that we are expected to think he is not speaking as a prophet? That is ludicrous.

[T-Shirt]

When a prophet stands at the pulpit and claims to preach the law of God, you would have to be "apallingly (sic) ignorant or inexcusably dishonest" to not comprehend it as such.

It was the law of God, as I have already pointed out. Why is this so hard to understand. The law in the Old Testament was that Israel was not to marry outside the covenant. If they did, the Lord said He would "destroy them suddenly". Your beef is with God, not Brigham Young. You may not agree with the Old Testament, and you may not agree with Brigham Young's application of the Old Testament, but stop claiming that what Brigham Young said to be the Law of God, was not, that is dishonest.

T-Shirt

[Observer]

I think you missed my point. The question was raised by you and others repeatedly of where Brigham Young got his idea of the "Law of God". I showed you, and it is biblical. It was not some crazy idea that Brigham conjured up. I am not expecting you to agree with him, but I think you can quit complaining about, "death on the spot" now that you know where he got it from and his intent in using it.

T-Shirt

I guess I did miss your point. I was commenting earlier that the sermon can't be blown off as simply personal opinion common in the day. I was arguing that, according to the sermon, Brigham Young got this 'mixing with Africans=death' concept FROM GOD. Now that you've portrayed the concept as Biblical, I'm not sure where you're going with this. It's still FROM GOD, right? If not, I assume a Prophet a thousand years later would easily be able to distinguish how the "Law of God" actually should be (as Joseph Smith did many times).

My argument was never 'where did Brigham get this from.' Clearly, Brigham Young is of the opinion is that it cam from God (hence "Law of God").

In my view, this "race mixing" stuff never comes from God, but from race obsessed human beings. The difference here, however, is that Brigham specifically included the "Law of God" bit, so the possiblities are (1) it IS a Law of God (2) it is NOT a Law of God (hence the Prophet has incorrectly attributed his own opinions regarding Africans or even mistaken Biblical opinion regarding Africans directly TO GOD)--- I would imagine God would not be pleased if that is actually the case.

And although many here would have me take their opinion over the Prophet's declaring a "Law of God", I see no reason to accept their position and disregard the prophets. It's funny really, me defending Mormonism's precious "modern Prophets" against their own personal opinion.

Lastly, this is why I commented on the false prophet idea. It's a catch-22, I realize that. If the "true" prophet stands before the world and basically declares "God's view" of the matter that God actually doesn't share, he is (by definition) a false prophet. Don't bother coming up with examples of how this idea would create false biblical prophets. I hold them to the same standard: If you're a prophet explaining God's Law to me, it had BETTER BE God's law, or you're no prophet. I realize Pahoran thinks a concept so simple is unfair, and that really makes me chuckle (it's also a point to consider in a new thread: what could POSSIBLY be the definition of a false prophet??).

[juliann]

We're not talking about significant groups of the time, we're talking about a man who claimed to be a mouth piece of God.  It is not unrealistic to expect such a person to be more in-tune and sensitive with the potential of an entire race.

LIke all of the other leaders who claimed to be a mouthpiece of God at the same time? What we are really talking about is your fundamentalistic abracadrabra kinda world view where you can take a person out of his milieu and remake his mind to fit the 21st century. Hey...why can't Prez Hinckley solve the oil crisis! He should be able to see how to make better cars!

[Pahoran]

AKS,

still radiating more heat than light, I see.

We're not talking about significant groups of the time, we're talking about a man who claimed to be a mouth piece of God. It is not unrealistic to expect such a person to be more in-tune and sensitive with the potential of an entire race.

But Brigham didn't claim to be a prophet according to the lazy assumptions of irreligious new-agers. He claimed to be a prophet in the tradition of the biblical prophets, and nothing else. As such, it is entirely unrealistic to arrogantly demand that Brigham conform to your expectations. What you should do instead is look at the biblical expectations of prophets.

Which is something race-baiters never do.

And why is that?

Because the Bible gives no aid or comfort to those who want to imagine that prophets are (1) immune to the cultures in which they grow up, or (2) instantly "sanitised" the moment they receive their callings.

But those are the only conditions under which your non-biblical expectations would actually work.

I think YOU are the one being dishonest (and I mean the in the literal sense).  When a prophet stands at the pulpit and claims to preach the law of God, you would have to be "apallingly (sic)  ignorant or inexcusably dishonest" to not comprehend it as such.

Thank you for giving me your opinion. That, plus about $1.60, should buy me a litre of gasoline.

However, if you made the mental effort to actually engage my argument before you engaged your keyboard, your opinion might actually add something of value.

Since paging back is probably more effort than any of us can reasonably expect of you, I'll repeat what I said, and which you obviously missed, and elaborate it, just for you:

A statement equivalent to "I'll tell you the law of God" is something any 19th-Century preacher could (and regularly did) make.

It is never equivalent to "I'll tell you what God has revealed to me," and is always equivalent to "I'll tell you what you would know if you read the Bible the right way."

Thus, to expect it to mean something materially different when and only when Brigham says it, is special pleading.

Which is not honest.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Observer]

We're not talking about significant groups of the time, we're talking about a man who claimed to be a mouth piece of God.

[AKS]

LIke all of the other leaders who claimed to be a mouthpiece of God at the same time?

I'm arguing on the assumption that you think BY was NOT like the other leaders of the time who claimed to talk on behalf of God. If you really think that BY was actually like the others (ie not a real prophet) then we are in agreement.

[T-Shirt]

If you're a prophet explaining God's Law to me, it had BETTER BE God's law, or you're no prophet.

I think you have still missed the point. Let me try again. In Deuteronomy 7:1 we read:

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;

Do you see that Canaanites are mentioned? Canaanites are the descendants of Ham, which Brigham Young and most of Christianity of the time believed to be the "African race". and then in verse three, we read:

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.

Among others, the Israelites were not to marry the Canaanites. If they did, in verse four we find out that God would "destroy thee suddenly".

Is this that hard to grasp. Brigham Young was explaining the Law of God as found in the Bible, which was that if Israel married Canaanites, they would be destroyed.

He was not making it up. The only argument that you can now have is whether or not blacks are descendants of Ham. I don't have problem with you making that argument, but if you find Brigham Young a racist for this comment, then you must find God equally a racist based on Deuteronomy 7:1-4.

I hope that helps.

T-Shirt

[Tarski]

We're not talking about significant groups of the time, we're talking about a man who claimed to be a mouth piece of God.

[Tarski]

If you're a prophet explaining God's Law to me, it had BETTER BE God's law, or you're no prophet.

I think you have still missed the point. Let me try again. In Deuteronomy 7:1 we read:

Among others, the Israelites were not to marry the Canaanites. If they did, in verse four we find out that God would "destroy thee suddenly".

Is this that hard to grasp. Brigham Young was explaining the Law of God as found in the Bible, which was that if Israel married Canaanites, they would be destroyed.

He was not making it up. The only argument that you can now have is whether or not blacks are descendants of Ham. I don't have problem with you making that argument, but if you find Brigham Young a racist for this comment, then you must find God equally a racist based on Deuteronomy 7:1-4.

I hope that helps.

T-Shirt

The Bible is full of racism, genocide and scientific absurdities. The God of the OT seems manifestly evil and childish. What do you hope to prove by appealing to the Bible?

[AKS]

A statement equivalent to "I'll tell you the law of God" is something any 19th-Century preacher could (and regularly did) make.

It is never equivalent to "I'll tell you what God has revealed to me," and is always equivalent to "I'll tell you what you would know if you read the Bible the right way."

Well this is certainly your opinion. I don't see any argument here to strenghten you position, however. My opinion is that BY beleived he was a prophet and was actually speaking on behalf of God in the sermon. What makes your argument better than mine?

Thus, to expect it to mean something materially different when and only when Brigham says it, is special pleading.

Again I'm assuming here, but I'd bet most if not all TBMs of the time expected something different, perhaps even something inspired, from BY.

[Observer]

A statement equivalent to "I'll tell you the law of God" is something any 19th-Century preacher could (and regularly did) make.

It is never equivalent to "I'll tell you what God has revealed to me," and is always equivalent to "I'll tell you what you would know if you read the Bible the right way."

Well this is certainly your opinion. I don't see any argument here to strenghten you position, however. My opinion is that BY beleived he was a prophet and was actually speaking on behalf of God in the sermon. What makes your argument better than mine?

Thus, to expect it to mean something materially different when and only when Brigham says it, is special pleading.

Again I'm assuming here, but I'd bet most if not all TBMs of the time expected something different, perhaps even something inspired, from BY.

Well of course not AKS. I actually imagine the poor congregations and member of the church in Brigham's day sitting there, listening to his sermons and thinking something like "Ya know dear, this stuff the prophet is saying all just sounds like anti-mormon lies to me."

[koakaipo]

I think there will simply be a divide on how different people interpret this.

On one side, I think it's understandable that Observer is talking that BY was speaking, regardless of it being declared revelation or not, authoritatively and invoking God's will on the matter, regardless of how the will originated, first hand or biblically. Regardless of the circumstances or reasoning, I think he's saying it means something, and it matters. I can't knock him for that.

And I think it's just more now about how we attempt to process this is where the divide is between a Mormon process and non-Mormon process.

Obviously i'm going to process it in a way that is faith promoting.I think it matters, and I think it does implicate how human our leaders are. As I said earlier, we as a community "sustain" our leaders, we don't worship them. Our leaders are grounded by having apostles and other leaders to counsel and find consensus with. Our scriptures talk of the very fallible natue of our prophets that accompany inspireation. Our scriptures talk of unrigheous dominion befalling basically almost every priesthood leader, even when it's with the best of intentions! Our leaders talk about how fallible they are.

So, these things do shape how I view leadership, while still sustaining them. And I think that's appropriate.

Also, observer, I think Moksha wasn't being sarcastic. I think he was being serious.