Brigham Young and extreme racism

[AKS]

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.

Koakaipo, I think its more than that. If a prophet claimed that the Lord would return in the next 50 years and it didn't happen, I would have less problem with the failed prophecy than BYs views. IMO, the racist remarks reveal to me a serious character flaw. The question then becomes: would God call a person with such a skewed view of His children to lead His only true church?

[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.

Thank you Koakaipo. I was serious. It does not benefit the LDS Church to be linked with racism. We should do everything possible to distance the Church from racism.

Listen to what Koakaipo says, it is full of conciliation and wisdom.

[King Pagan]

Koakaipo, I think its more than that.  If a prophet claimed that the Lord would return in the next 50 years and it didn't happen, I would have less problem with the failed prophecy than BYs views.  IMO, the racist remarks reveal to me a serious character flaw.  The question then becomes: would God call a person with such a skewed view of His children to lead His only true church?

Name one prophet without character flaw.

IMO, Jesus is not the right answer.

[Observer]

Koakaipo, I think its more than that.

[Zakuska]

observer,

The question then becomes: would God call a person with such a skewed view of His children to lead His only true church?

And from there the Question becomes... Why has God chosen prophets with worse Character flaws to do just that? (eg Jonah, Moses, Peter, Paul, et al)

And you have removed the bible from the equation so it means nothing. You have also removed Brigham from the context of his discourse.

[T-Shirt]

The "flaw" is not simply that he was racist, either. The problem is that he attributed this view directly to God as a "Law of God." By attributing the view held to God as "God's Law", Brigham attempted to remove his personal race views from the equation.

Are you people intentionally obtuse? Let me put it very plain:

IT WAS THE LAW OF GOD.

Was God a racist against the Canaanites for saying the same thing that Brigham Young said?

If Brigham was wrong about the blacks being descendants of the Canaanites, then argue that point, but cut the continual whining about "the Law of God".

It was the law of God that if Israel married among the Canaanites, they would be destroyed. That is all BY was saying, nothing more, nothing less, he paraphrased the Bible.

T-Shirt

[Zakuska]

t-shirt

yes observer is very obtuse I agree.

BY paraphrased the Bible twice or more in this discourse.

[Pahoran]

"And slimy things did crawl with legs

Upon a slimy sea" (S. T. Coleridge.)

Tarski,

in support of the race-baiting agenda, you wrote:

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?

The fallacy of the false dilemma is a dishonest rhetorical trick, wherein the sophist presents his opponent with two unpalatable alternatives and demands that he choose between them.

You, being an unbeliever, are entitled to ignore whatever you like. Were you capable of ignoring the Church of Jesus Christ, you'd be capable of leaving it alone. I, as a believer, do not ignore the words of the prophets on any subject; but it is up to us, not you, to decide which of his words are relevant to us, or binding upon us.

This, btw, is a perfectly non-controversial fact which only the most rabid anti-Mormon fanatics dispute.

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

That's a common misrepresentation of Brigham's words.

Observer,

you wrote:

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

You "realize" no such thing, since that is not my view. That's just one more thing you get wrong.

The fact is that that "definition" exists nowhere but in the minds of yourself and your fellow race-baiters. It certainly doesn't come from the Bible. We refer to that because, as I mentioned above, and you failed again to "observe," Brigham claimed to be a prophet in the biblical tradition, not according to your ad-hoc, reverse-engineered-to-fit-your-agenda expectations.

Tarski,

you wrote:

Maybe a prophet is supposed to let us see moral truth independent of what is accepted by society. Brigham Young should have, indeed could have done the same.

OTHERS DID SPEAK OUT!

And in fact Brigham did, as you would know, if you cared enough about the truth to actually follow the thread.

See my earlier post discussing the actual content of his actual talk. Brigham demanded legal protections for slaves and called for an end to bloodshed. He was far-sighted enough to realise that mere abolition wasn't going to do the slaves a whole heckuva lot of good, and history shows that he was dead right; their situation remained about as dreadful as before for about a century after the Emancipation Proclamation came into effect.

In the plenitude of your overweening (and undemonstrated) moral superiority, you subsequently wrote:

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?

See above. Whatever the drawbacks of the OT record, the fact is that Brigham claimed to be a prophet in the biblical tradition. If his imperfections resemble theirs, we can live very comfortably with that.

And since race-baiting is every bit as vile as the racism it affects to despise, we can also live with your contumely.

AKS,

I previously wrote:

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.

And you responded:

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?

Standard usage is standard usage; which is a valid argument. If you want to argue that Brigham's usage of a standard expression was anything other than standard, you need to provide some evidence in support of your position. Can you?

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.

Which answers my question: obviously not.

Now those who are attacking Brigham's character have done a lot of whining about "character attacks" coming back their way. The fact is that hypocrisy is and always has been a character flaw; the one Jesus despised the most, in fact. Not one of you have demonstrated the slightest interest in the racial views of other Americans of Brigham's day. You are happy to forgive the most enlightened minds of the time for being no further ahead than Brigham, and even behind him in some respects; why is that?

Answer: because you don't really care about any "race" issues at all. You only care about how useful these things are to your undeniable anti-Mormon agenda. I hope that someday you may grow enough character to stop Mormon-bashing; of course, if that were to happen, your "disgusting race-baiting filth" would stop at the same time, wouldn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[King Pagan]

Koakaipo, I think its more than that.  If a prophet claimed that the Lord would return in the next 50 years and it didn't happen, I would have less problem with the failed prophecy than BYs views.  IMO, the racist remarks reveal to me a serious character flaw.  The question then becomes: would God call a person with such a skewed view of His children to lead His only true church?

Name one prophet without character flaw.

IMO, Jesus is not the right answer.

The "flaw" is not simply that he was racist, either. The problem is that he attributed this view directly to God as a "Law of God." By attributing the view held to God as "God's Law", Brigham attempted to remove his personal race views from the equation.

Hence, no prophet is perfect. Therefore, all prophets are accepted by their followers and practicioners as fallible human beings. Isn't it just sad that they happen to be living in and reflecting their cultures.

However, you can only call him a racist from YOUR perspective. You have the benefit of your time and place. You cannot with certainty know that he would retain these attitudes or cultural expressions for 200 years. In HIS time and place, you cannot comprehend.

[koakaipo]

AKS-I mentioned this earlier-as someone who is brown, this is a subject close to my heart. I don't take this lightly or fliply.

I do think that being the recipient of bigotry does give me some reality checks about how it operates though in our society. I don't think racism is an inherent character flaw because I don't see it as an individual thing-it's a societal thing, and it's an insidious and powerful social thing at that. I don't believe anyone in our society doesn't get schooled on it on some level, it's informed me well. I have my moments where I catch myself, where I realize I'm operating from a racial place.

On top of that, history is what I actually studied in school(okay, very casually as I was more interested in the beach than my studies). And since I was very interested in how the West interacted with Polynesia in particular, that's where my focus was. I did alot of stuff with ethnic studies and history regarding the 19th century and how religion affected West/Pac relations and the power deals,etc. And I'm sorry, but again, seeing how people processed everything so racially again reinforces my notions regarding race.

Now, BY isn't off the hook to me. I think JS for instance was an interesting example of someone who seemed to reconsider racial notions over his life and altered his views accordingly. He actually got close enough to black folks and associated with them enough to be able to make those reconsiderations in the first place.

Now, BY didn't have much of a change at all. He was very firm. And that firm sstyle was great for keeping folks together through some crazy times and what have you. But it didn't necessarily always work when it came to things like reconsidering race. And being isolated in Utah didn't help with helping to nudge reconsiderations either. Being isolated in Utah didn't help the church in alot of ways, because why reconsider notions when basically there was no reason to really?

So, it's not about being off the hook. But I don't take it to the point that this is an individual thing, race and racism. I really do think that doesn't give enough credit to it's hold on our society, back then and now even.

[Observer]

The "flaw" is not simply that he was racist, either. The problem is that he attributed this view directly to God as a "Law of God." By attributing the view held to God as "God's Law", Brigham attempted to remove his personal race views from the equation.

Are you people intentionally obtuse? Let me put it very plain:

IT WAS THE LAW OF GOD.

Was God a racist against the Canaanites for saying the same thing that Brigham Young said?

If Brigham was wrong about the blacks being descendants of the Canaanites, then argue that point, but cut the continual whining about "the Law of God".

It was the law of God that if Israel married among the Canaanites, they would be destroyed. That is all BY was saying, nothing more, nothing less, he paraphrased the Bible.

T-Shirt

Bogus. You now seem to be completely ignoring any and all context you're usually fond of searching out.

The different comments in the entire sermon did have one thing in common: current events.

T-Shirt said:

"...It was the law of God that if Israel married among the Canaanites, they would be destroyed. That is all BY was saying, nothing more, nothing less, he paraphrased the Bible..."

Nothing less, nothing more, eh? Throughout the sermon, Brigham Young was referencing current events of the day...not simply "Israel [marrying] the Canaanites". Nice try though, but it's not that simple at all.

Even if your simplistic analysis has any merit, Brigham Young was still applying the "race mixing" concept to the current day. You most certainly aren't reading "nothing less, nothing more".

In fact, Brigham Young is speaking to us now just as surely as the people of his time. The word to watch for is "always".

Incidentally, I consider the writers of the Bible to be more racist than Brigham Young many times over. It's their milieu, remember? I don't hold their words above criticism. Brigham's use of "God approved racism" is less acceptable than theirs (being more modern and all), but it's all still junk. I don't look to ancient "wife herders" while wondering how to appropriately treat my wife. Similarly, I don't seek their ancient, simple minded views on race and skin color while dealing with my fellow human beings in the current day.

[Pahoran]

Being isolated in Utah didn't help the church in alot of ways, because why reconsider notions when basically there was no reason to really?

Mind you, being isolated in Utah did help the Church in other, arguably more important ways.

For instance, now that we've survived the various attempts to wipe us out, we have the luxury to navel-gaze about questions of "racism."

A luxury we would not have if we hadn't survived the 19th Century in the "land of the free."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mor-Atheist]

T-Shirt,

Thanks for your earlier post (with the scriptural reference), that actually seemed to be the thing that made the lightbulb click on over here.

That along with Pahoran's lengthy comments actually closed the deal for me, I have no problem conceding when things add up, and it does appear to me here that Brigham was referring to the scripture (of course I still think man penned that initial phrase, but that is another subject....) and may not have meant what it appeared on the surface to be.

Pahoran,

You are probably one of the smartest people on this board, but you do more harm than good, you immediately turn people off by your arrogance. I want to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you because of the way you come off. When you actually starting throwing something around other than insults, you actually have something great to say. Too bad, not many will be able to put up with you long enough to know that......

Oh, and one last thing, still not doing anything for me with the Abraham Lincoln info. I think you fail to realize that I do not attend and Atheist church to learn what should and should not offend/get a rise out of me. I simply do not believe in god.

[Mor-Atheist]

Mind you, being isolated in Utah did help the Church in other, arguably more important ways.

For instance, now that we've survived the various attempts to wipe us out, we have the luxury to navel-gaze about questions of "racism."

A luxury we would not have if we hadn't survived the 19th Century in the "land of the free."

Pahoran,

Case in point, calm, polite response to a fellow member. If this was a "anti-mormon-filthslinging-racebaiting-dishonest-unintellectual" somehow you would have found a way to argue....

[Observer]

Koakaipo, I think its more than that.

[koakaipo]

I qualified that comment. Saying it's a luxury is a bit annoying too, since I did have ancestors who were a part of the Iosepa colony back in the day in Utah. I doubt they saw the question of race a luxury, but a hard reality.

I personally think BY's style was important for what was going down at the time-he may not have been as warm and fuzzy as JS for alot of people, but JS's style would have most likely been less effective in similar instances. At the same time, it's that style that and the isolation from blacks in general that made it harder to allow for reconsiderations.

And that spills over to the church as a whole. Of course isolation worked in many ways. But when did reconsiderations begin to really start happening among the community? when Mormonism began to branch outward and internationalizing. So in terms of thinking about race and diversity and a universal gospel, isolation makes it harder to do such things. That assertion in no way discredits the benefits though that a fledgling community experienced.

[Pahoran]

Bogus. You now seem to be completely ignoring any and all context you're usually fond of searching out.

The different comments in the entire sermon did have one thing in common: current events.

Actually, we can be more specific than that: the recurring theme was "outside pressure" upon the Church, and its source in the wickedness of the persecutors.

A theme that seems no less relevant today.

Nothing less, nothing more, eh? Throughout the sermon, Brigham Young was referencing current events of the day...not simply "Israel [marrying] the Canaanites". Nice try though, but it's not that simple at all.

Even if your simplistic analysis has any merit, Brigham Young was still applying the "race mixing" concept to the current day. You most certainly aren't reading "nothing less, nothing more".

So, when someone says it is more nuanced than you can grasp, you refer back to how "simple" it is, but when someone else says that it is "simply" something different, suddenly they are being too "simple?"

In fact, Brigham Young is speaking to us now just as surely as the people of his time. The word to watch for is "always".

"Always" in what connection?

Ah, yes; the "death on the spot" line, right?

Well now, "Observer," please enlighten us: as has been pointed out several times, and you have constantly evaded, just a few sentences later, Brigham is ripping on slave-holders for abusing their slaves, saying that they will be "cursed" therefor. Not only that, but when given the opportunity to enact his views into law, Brigham contents himself with legislation that protects slaves from being sexually exploited. Furthermore, when challenged to provide a single example of Brigham ever attempting to execute anyone for miscegenation in any form, none of you have been able to provide anything. Given this relevant context, do you accept that those who are not race-baiters are entitled to ignore race-baiting accusations and draw their own conclusions about what Brigham was actually talking about?

Space for your answer here:___________________________

Incidentally, I consider the writers of the Bible to be more racist than Brigham Young many times over. It's their milieu, remember? I don't hold their words above criticism. Brigham's use of "God approved racism" is less acceptable than theirs (being more modern and all), but it's all still junk. I don't look to ancient "wife herders" while wondering how to appropriately treat my wife. Similarly, I don't seek their ancient, simple minded views on race and skin color while dealing with my fellow human beings in the current day.

Nice to know that you, too, are so vastly superior to those ignorant primitives about whose culture you are obviously so well-informed.

I won't embarrass you by testing your knowledge of that cultural milieu, however; nor will I labour the point that you are being just as racist towards those "simple minded wife herders" as you accuse them of being towards their neighbours. I'll just ask you this one question:

Given (and it is a given) that race-baiting is every bit as repugnant as the "racism" it affects to despise, just exactly why should your proudly proclaimed bigotries be taken any more seriously than, say, Brigham's views?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Its also intresting how people have avoided like the plague Brighams obvious race supiriority hyperbole that the whites where purpotrating on the red skins.

I wonder why? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Observer]

Pahoran, I tried filling in the line on the screen but my pencil broke.

I've heard arguments similar to this before. Sort of a "don't step on my God-given civil right to infringe on other peoples' civil rights!" sorta thing, eh? Or a klan marcher screaming "you're being racist by callin' me a racist!"

Oh and the "death on the spot" bit...I can only say that a certain lady could certainly use your professional interpretation, PR and spin services in 2008.

Brigham's wording was clear and straight forward. Your decryption services really are not necessary. Give the guy some credit, eh? His words sound ridiculous when taken at face value because, well, they were ridiculous.

[Observer]

Well now, "Observer," please enlighten us: as has been pointed out several times, and you have constantly evaded, just a few sentences later, Brigham is ripping on slave-holders for abusing their slaves, saying that they will be "cursed" therefor.

I made no such evasion, Pahoran. Perhaps you should "use your back button", as you are fond of saying and go review the thread.

Your "few sentences later" logic is grasping at disappearing straws. I'm curious to know if you could possibly link the text a few dozen pages later to the paragraph of your choice.

"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."

I think I just might frame this quote on my wall with a caption:

Brigham Young, speaking in defense of African slave women repeatedly raped by their slave owners.

When my guests begin to laugh hysterically, I'll quickly silence them: "hush up, you filthy dishonest race baiter." Sound good? I'll make copies if your interested.

[Observer]

Issue was not evaded. The "Brigham was just defending raped slave women" theory is NOT settled.

Zakuska, your entire post might have been summed up this way:

"The Southerns sometimes abused their slaves sexually and this ties in BY statement of "Gods law" of mixing seed."

It's nice that you are able to use your own knowledge of history to change the meaning of the Prophet's clearly worded explanation of a law of God. Unfortunately, your interpretation is to be found nowhere in the actual words of the prophet.

Brigham Young was plainly-spoken. His words are clear and uncomplicated. Your translation and decryption services are really not necessary. I'm getting the feeling you just don't want the paragraph to say what it says.

I am reading nothing into the statement that isn't there. I am reading it as written. There is a God, who has a Law against "chosen" seed mixing with the "African race" and the penalty for violation is "death on the spot". It's really that simple.

Also, I guess in one paragraph, Brigham Young realizes the slave women are being raped by their white slave owners and says so (according to some here) with the word "abuse"???

But in the quote being discussed, rape of slave women is termed as "chosen seed...mixes his blood with the African race"???

On what planet? Should I load up my Gospel Doctrine collection and re-interpret each instance of "mixing blood" as rape?

Again, in the previous paragraph, Brigham is clearly giving *his* view of slave owners (slave worshipers) and abolitionists (black hearted republicans) and the conflict of the day.

In the next paragraph, he turns to explain a law of God regarding "race mixing with Africans" (not good, according to God). There is NO hint of "race mixing" in the previous paragraph NOR rape in either paragraphs. Are you just making this stuff up? Once again, you just don't want the paragraph to say what it does say.

[Zakuska]

Observer,

But in the quote being discussed, rape of slave women is termed as "chosen seed...mixes his blood with the African race"???

Which is directly smack dab in the middle of the Chaism, of Slave holders abusing their slaves, Two which the federal Government made laws to protect against.

To which planet should I high away to "observe" Brighams words with my blinders on in a vaccum as you do?

[juliann]

Issue was not evaded. The "Brigham was just defending raped slave women" theory is NOT settled.

When are you going to get it? He wasn't defending "raped slave women"...he was enacting the segregationistic values of the day. GET IT? Now if you can handle that much retrospection let's compare...k? What was happening to slave women in the south? Hmmm? With me? What laws were there protecting them for any reason. Heck, what acknowledgement was there that this was even going on? Can you even imagine the uproar if a law was written that said slaves had to be educated, couldn't be accused and would have to be turned over to the probate court if they were? Show me even the beginnings of such laws, "Observer". Anywhere. For any reason. Your self-righteous holier than thou ignorant opinion is really getting stifling.

In the next paragraph, he turns to explain a law of God regarding "race mixing with Africans" (not good, according to God). There is NO hint of "race mixing" in the previous paragraph NOR rape in either paragraphs. Are you just making this stuff up? Once again, you just don't want the paragraph to say what it does say.

Explain the legislation from BY and stop avoiding it by recycling the same tired race baiting accusations.

[Abulafia]

Juliann (I think it was you , there are a lot of new posts here since yesterday) I agree that the church in my area is a good example of racial mixing, it isn't the only church that is good at racial mixing, but it is true non the less.

I live in a very multi-cultural area, so it has always been that we have had a variety of cultures from African, Jamaican, Indian and so forth in our church, mixing without a thought or care in the world. In my own ward I never experienced any modern racist ideologies or racist people. Just didn't happen.

What I did experience was a variety of justifications for the belief that somehow the negro race were cursed through the loins of Ham. I take T Shirts point about the issue of whether the Canaanites were the negro, clearly they were not (please show evidence if you believe they were, I can't find any!). Clearly BY got this wrong.

I only experienced racism when I got to Utah, particularly as it relates to mixed marriages and stereotypical views of people of colour. Like Koakaipo I put it down to being in a social bubble.

What I did hear also from almost all older members (I grew up in the church as a teenager) was that the negro were not valiant in the pre-existence. I now know this to be a mormon fallacy, goodness knows who instituted it, but it gave another justification for denying the priesthood to the negro race.

I am trying very hard from this thread to understand what the current view not only of the GA's and prophet, but also of the membership is, regarding the doctrine (purportedly God given) of withholding the priesthood from the blacks because of the curse of Ham. Can someone please enlighten?

I was absolutely relieved to read Koakaipo's link, and it pretty much settled it for me. I thought great!!!

But then Deborah chips in and says no.

Can't there be any clear and decisive clarification on this issue.Pahoran may jump up and down all he wishes, but for me, and I beleive for many active members, it was always an aspect of the gospel that was widely misunderstood and puzzled over and was one of those issues that just got put on the shelf.

[Observer]

"When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed 'if they were far away from the Gentiles.'"(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 246-247)

This, along with the original quote in the sermon of discussion makes is quite clear that Brigham truly did mean exactly what he said. He wasn't fudging or speaking in complicated, cryptic style. He meant his words to be interpreted exactly as spoken.

As far as legislation goes, I can only guess that he didn't feel quite confident to go that far. He was simply expressing the "Law of God." 'Testing the waters', I suppose.