Brigham Young and extreme racism

[Magyar]

"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.

Please provide the original source for this apparently second or third hand quote.

[juliann]

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.

Actually, Mormons stayed with the Cain stuff...it was the rest of Christianity who went to Ham to avoid the implication that if blacks came from Cain they would have to have been made in the image of God. It was only Darwinism that settled the argument of who belonged to the human race. In other words, this was not a Mormon idea...it was around long before they were a twinkle in God's eye.

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.

Baptist churches are still segregated in the South. "First" and "Second" Baptist is the code word. I find it hard to believe that you have not experienced racism anywhere but "Utah". The worst I have seen was in CA...but then I've never been to the deep South.

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.

There was a First Prez Statement decades ago saying this was not true. Folklore is probably the most insidious and hardest to stamp out. But then... excuses like these were cultural not "Mormon". Other churches kept the blacks out by barring them from seminaries or just plain refusing them entrance to the church. Mormons tried to come up with weird reasons "why".

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?

To be honest, I feel like I'm talking into an echo chamber. You have ignored almost everything to this point and continue to ask the same questions over and over. Of course the church does not stand behind this nonsense. Of course there are still people in the world who will. If I go to the trouble to put up more quotes for you will it matter?

[juliann]

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.

Then produce some proof.

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.

Well, then...in lack of any circumstance...legislation or anything else that would make this be what you want it to be....we will have to throw out everything that makes it obvious people were not "dying on the spot" and accept the ultimate source of truth...your "guess". ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Observer]

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.

Then produce some proof.

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.

Well, then...in lack of any circumstance...legislation or anything else that would make this be what you want it to be....we will have to throw out everything that makes it obvious people were not "dying on the spot" and accept the ultimate source of truth...your "guess". ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Juliann don't be so silly. I know you aren't seriously arguing that I stated anywhere in this thread that "race mixers" were dying "on the spot" or that Brigham Young ever attempted legislation to make it so...or are you?

You are arguing with yourself for a good show, it appears.

I have only ever argued that the Prophet Brigham Young did, in fact, say this: that according to the "law of God", "chosen seed" who "mix blood" with the "African race" are subject to "death on the spot" -- and we can discuss what he did or didn't "mean", whether the law he references is in fact God's "view" of the matter, if "always" really means always, etc.

Very few of your posts have added legitimate discussion to this thread. No one is saying people who "mixed" with Africans were actually killed "on the spot". Quit with the fog cloud. What I am saying, along with others, is that Brigham Young apparently believed that in a world living under the "law of God", they would be. I'm not "guessing" anything. I'll leave the "guessing" to you with your "goose egg", "slave rape", etc. theories. I read his words as written, that's all.

Your "then produce some proof" argument is beyond laughable, and frankly, dishonest. The argument is NOT that Brigham had "race mixers" killed "on the spot"...ONLY that he, GOD'S PROPHET, stated that, according to GOD'S LAW: this WOULD OCCUR.

Once again, it seems you are reaching for straws, because you apparently just don't want the passage to say what it says. Your complex-laws-of-God-not-easily-understood-by-common-Latter-day-saints decypher and translation services are truly not necessary.

[Zakuska]

And you have repeatedly missed Duet 7. In which this "Law of God" is specifically drawn out. You also have missed his other referal to the "Law of God" where VD victims where cast into Leper colonies. Next thing you'll be saying that Leper colonies werent instituted by God either.

[Abulafia]

Baptist churches are still segregated in the South.

[Observer]

And you have repeatedly missed Duet 7. In which this "Law of God" is specifically drawn out.

[Zakuska]

Observer you have just shown how shallow your understanding really is...

I refer you to page 20 first post... Where I quoted the final Paragraphs of Brighams Discourse and are the paragraphs that follow directly after the Law of God re: the African Race.

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.

[Observer]

Zakuska, I know you mean well, but I turned to a side panel on a box of Cheerios and found an equivalent contribution to this discussion of this "Law of God" Brigham Young refers to which proscribes "death on the spot" for members of the "chosen seed" who "mix" with the "African race."

How long have you been linking unrelated concepts like this? Your "additional context" does nothing? Nadda. Zilch. I wasn't able to find anything on my cereal box, but maybe you could.

[Zakuska]

The Context means everything.

Both "Laws of God" practices are directly outlined in Duet 7.

Was God going to Restore everything or was he not?

[Observer]

The Context means everything.

Both "Laws of God" practices are directly outlined in Duet 7.

Was God going to Restore everything or was he not?

Ahhh. Ok, so it IS a "law of God" as sure as any other. Ok.

Zakuska, just curious.

If this "law" was truly a "law of God" and applicable in Duet 7, I suppose your argument is that the "law" was still applicable in Brigham Young's day, and so Brigham Young was just reiterating "God's Law" as written in Duet 7?

If this "law of God" (according to your Duet 7 theory) was applicable in Brigham Young's day, does it remain applicable today? Has the "law" been rescinded?

[Zakuska]

According to the Bible on which BY was relying, yes.

It appears you havent read any of T-Shirts Posts.

[Observer]

According to the Bible on which BY was relying, yes.

It appears you havent read any of T-Shirts Posts. 

"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."

"Yes" this law has been rescinded, or "yes" this law remains applicable still today???

[Zakuska]

Yes, This law is in the Bible. Recindment is relative.

[Pahoran]

Observer,

you ranted:

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!

Way to go, trying to smear us by association with the Klan. As I've mentioned before, this is the dirtiest of polemical tricks, employed by all the cheapest demgogues; and it is consistent with your general level of honesty in this discussion.

I'm not calling you a racist because of your race-baiting. I'm calling you a racist because of your racist attitude towards the Hebrew authors of the Bible.

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.

Yada, yada, yada. Does your discourse ever get above smearing by association?

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.

But the trouble is that, unlike yourself, we are interested in the truth. Therefore, we don't leap to conclusions on the basis of a single statement; we want to find out the whole picture.

If you were honest--and you really should try it sometime--you'd be willing to admit that the old adage is true: "actions speak louder than words." Meaning that Brigham's actions are at least as valid evidence of his real views as his words are.

If you were honest--and you really should try it sometime--you'd freely and frankly admit that Brigham's actions are consistently much more moderate than some of the stuff he says in some of his talks.

If you were honest--and you really should try it sometime--you'd freely and frankly admit that this is one of those instances. Because all the evidence (ever heard of evidence?) shows that it is.

But you have not the slightest intention of being honest on this subject. You aren't the least bit interested in getting to the truth of this or any other issue; your sole agenda is to "dish the dirt" on Brigham, and try to work up some laboured and contrived argument about him being a "false prophet." Like all demagogues, you try to hide the logical flaws in your argument by picking out "hot button" emotional issues that get a pavlovian response out of people--like "racism." You do not give a flying rat's posterior about Black people in the Church; in fact, I would guess that you probably despise them as much as you do the Hebrew authors of the Bible. But you pick out this issue because it is convenient and it suits you.

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

You have never answered the question. You have heaped abuse and invective upon me for asking it, so as to avoid addressing it.

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.

Irrelevant, incompetent throw-away line. The two statements are part of the same discourse and close together.

"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.

Ah. Mere ridicule. How--rigorous, or something.

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.

"Really that simple," is it?

Then please demonstrate where Brigham's actions are ever consistent with your interpretation.

Because, if that is really his view, then they must be.

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.

Or maybe we would rather judge Brigham on all the evidence, not just a single statement buried in a talk.

"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.

Thank you for finally admitting what you have strenuously and vigorously denied all along: that Brigham's actions away from the pulpit are relevant to understanding what his real views are. I guess it must be much easier to change your position when you think you've found something that supports your argument.

Since this report is hearsay, we are not going to admit it into evidence until we've seen something resembling a complete quote from a primary source. Mike Quinn is known as the "Ginsu historian" because of his penchant for slicing and dicing his sources, so we'd like to see what it looked like before he got to work on it.

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.

So now you think your speculations are evidence. Amazing.

Juliann don't be so silly. I know you aren't seriously arguing that I stated anywhere in this thread that "race mixers" were dying "on the spot" or that Brigham Young ever attempted legislation to make it so...or are you?

But that's the point. Given (and it is a given) that Brigham never attempted to actually do anything consistent with your interpretation of his words, then how can you insist, with a straight face, that your interpretation must be authoritative?

You are arguing with yourself for a good show, it appears.

I have only ever argued that the Prophet Brigham Young did, in fact, say this: that according to the "law of God", "chosen seed" who "mix blood" with the "African race" are subject to "death on the spot" -- and we can discuss what he did or didn't "mean", whether the law he references is in fact God's "view" of the matter, if "always" really means always, etc.

Very condescendingly kind of you to set the parameters of the discussion. You will only permit us to discuss the meanings of the words, so that you can trot out your usual smear-by-association thought-terminating cliche about "the meaning of 'is.'"

So sorry, but we're not falling for it.

As I said earlier: it is exclusively and only for those who believe in Brigham's prophetic calling to determine which of his statements are relevant to us, or binding upon us. When some arrogant accusing apostate starts telling us what his words mean, then we are 100% entitled to reject his intentional misinterpretations.

Very few of your posts have added legitimate discussion to this thread.

And absolutely none of yours have.

No one is saying people who "mixed" with Africans were actually killed "on the spot".

Of course not.

And that is a very relevant fact.

Quit with the fog cloud.

You are the one trying to cloud things.

What I am saying, along with others, is that Brigham Young apparently believed that in a world living under the "law of God", they would be.

So that's your guess, is it?

I'm not "guessing" anything.

Actually, yes, you are. And contradicting yourself, too.

I'll leave the "guessing" to you with your "goose egg", "slave rape", etc. theories. I read his words as written, that's all.

Your "then produce some proof" argument is beyond laughable, and frankly, dishonest. The argument is NOT that Brigham had "race mixers" killed "on the spot"...ONLY that he, GOD'S PROPHET, stated that, according to GOD'S LAW: this WOULD OCCUR.

Then why didn't it, ever?

I have learned long ago that dishonest people frequently see dishonesty in others when it isn't really there. Asking for evidence that Brigham's actions were ever consistent with your interpretation of his words is a legitimate line of inquiry, and to call it "dishonest" is dishonest.

Here is another relevant fact: Brigham came from a tradition wherein people were used to "hellfire and damnation" sermons; but he was preaching to a people who did not believe in a literal burning hell. When we take this relevant fact with the earlier mentioned relevant fact that Brigham used a lot of hyperbole in his sermons, sometimes introducing gruesome notions about running people through with javelins and so forth, I believe the one explains the other: Brigham was trying to shock people out of their complacency by "giving them hell."

But I don't expect you to take cognizance of these relevant facts in any way or at any time. In fact, I fully expect you to either (1) ignore them completely, or (2) abuse me roundly for bringing them up.

After all, you're not the slightest bit interested in the truth. You're only interested in using race-baiting to advance your anti-Mormon agenda.

But those of us who are interested in the truth know that we have to take a cautious apporach to Brigham's more extreme statements--especially those that seem to imply "death" or "killing."

"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."

"Yes" this law has been rescinded, or "yes" this law remains applicable still today???

Ah. The fallacy of the false dilemma. How very predictable.

Who the devil do you think you are, to demand that we account to you on such terms?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Observer]

Pahoran said:

You do not give a flying rat's posterior about Black people in the Church

Nice, Pahoran. Nice. It really is evident when your own "emotional hot button" has been pressed. This, along with your "you have never laid eyes on the Journal of Discourses" line is laughable, but also very telling. You really would help your own credibility to not make such personal, inane comments when you are overtaken by your emotions, and lose all reason.

However, I have to hand it to you: you are certainly a wizard of words and dealer in doubt. Your "rant" has really accomplished absolutely nothing concerning this "law of God" the Prophet spoke of but attempted confusion, leaping, grasping, unreasonable defensiveness, etc. I can only assume that this was your intended purpose in a discussion like this all along: nothing.

Every religion out there has someone like you as a sworn defender. It is not the strength of their argument that keeps them typing, but the allegiance ensures they will defend for the purpose of defense, regardless of the subject, evidence, record or "truth." They use every clouding ploy in the book as surely as you do to defend whatever their pet belief is, no matter how ridiculous, irrational or simply indefensible (as with this sermon). You oughta look around. You might be able to actually make some money from this stuff, working for one of them instead. Or, considering your cloud-the-topic, fight-the-opposers talents, perhaps all of them simultaneously. Just imagine.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran said:

You do not give a flying rat's posterior about Black people in the Church

Nice, Pahoran. Nice. It really is evident when your own "emotional hot button" has been pressed.

Nurse! Nurse! He's out of bed again!

This, along with your "you have never laid eyes on the Journal of Discourses" line is laughable, but also very telling.

Actually that conclusion has been demonstrated to be logically sound. I have no doubt that the statement that called forth your latest rant is equally sound.

You really would help your own credibility to not make such personal, inane comments when you are overtaken by your emotions, and lose all reason.

Said the pot to the kettle.

I have looked carefully at your post for a single cogent counter-argument and found this:

That's right. Not a sausage.

So the matter is now settled: Brigham's actions are at least as valid evidence of his real views as his words are, and those who dispute this fact have nothing to say, and can only give vent to meaningless ravings.

Regards,

Pahoran

[AKS]

Pahoran your whole argument is bunk. Words can have a powerful effect especially if you are a "prophet of the only true church." If fact I dare say his words had a profound effect on the church for over 100 years.

Edited to say that based on some responses to this thread (deborah), his words are having an effect to this day. And its not a positive one. Still think the Lord would have a man like this speaking for his true church?

Just because there is no documented incident of BY killing a man for "mixing seed" with an African (or some such event) is no proof that he was not a shallow-minded racist.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran your whole argument is bunk.  Words can have a powerful effect especially if you are a "prophet of the only true church."  If fact I dare say his words had a profound effect on the church for over 100 years.

Except that no-one has produced any evidence that Brigham's "death on the spot" line--the one under discussion--had any impact on anyone in the Church, ever. You simply assume that it did.

Edited to say that based on some responses to this thread (deborah), his words are having an effect to this day.  And its not a positive one.

Really? And by what technique do you plan to either identify or quantify this alleged effect?

Never mind the fact that Church members do not go about denigrating people because of their race. Never mind the fact that the only time it ever comes up is when Mormon-haters opportunistically try to exploit Brigham's words for race-baiting purposes. Let's just cut to the chase: when was the last time you know of any Latter-day Saint trying to kill someone for entering into an interracial marriage?

Still think the Lord would have a man like this speaking for his true church?

I'm still waiting for someone--anyone--to at least try to offer some sound scriptural reason to suppose that he would not.

Just because there is no documented incident of BY killing a man for "mixing seed" with an African (or some such event) is no proof that he was not a shallow-minded racist.

But that's just it. We don't have to provide "proof" of any such thing. You have to provide proof that he was.

Which you would know, if you were not a shallow-minded race-baiter.

Regards,

Pahoran

[T-Shirt]

If this "law" was truly a "law of God" and applicable in Duet 7, I suppose your argument is that the "law" was still applicable in Brigham Young's day, and so Brigham Young was just reiterating "God's Law" as written in Duet 7?

Observer,

Let me see if I can better explain. If you notice in the talk by BY, right after the "death on the spot" remark, he paraphrases Isaiah and says:

The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.

His point in all of this was to show how God's law dealt with this issue in ancient days, but that in his day the world did not live by God's law, they had changed HIs laws. This is classic BY, he often spoke with fire to make a point. In this case, he was emphasizing how important it was to marry inside the covenant.

The "law" is, and is not applicable today. It is not applicable today in the same way it was not in BY's day, that is, we are not governed by God's law. However it was and still is applicable in the sense that those who marry outside the covenant will be destroyed spiritually, they will not be able to be exalted, unless there is repentance and conversion. This is a very risky thing.

If this "law of God" (according to your Duet 7 theory) was applicable in Brigham Young's day, does it remain applicable today? Has the "law" been rescinded?

Hopefully I have already explained this sufficiently. It is spiritually applicable today just as it always has been. Marrying blacks is irrelevant today, but marrying in the covenant is just as vital as always.

Oh and I just love your comparison of "leper colonies" and "VD victims" to Brigham's quote which is specifically "African race." Are those really comparable examples?

I think the point Zak was making was a good one. He was showing the context in which BY used the term "law of God". In this example, BY was encouraging members to be clean. He explained how things were anciently, when Israel was governed by the law of God, and even though in his day they were no longer governed in the same manner, they needed to understand the seriousness of being clean and live as though they were governed by the law of God.

I can't decide whether you all are trying to deny this "law of God" explained by the Prophet, rationalize the "law of God", change the wording into some other "law of God" or actually defend this "law of God" as completely reasonable in Brigham's day...because it was in Duet 7 (and likewise, today)?

[Mor-Atheist]

Pahoran,

Since you threw in some off topic remarks:

Here is another relevant fact: Brigham came from a tradition wherein people were used to "hellfire and damnation" sermons; but he was preaching to a people who did not believe in a literal burning hell. When we take this relevant fact with the earlier mentioned relevant fact that Brigham used a lot of hyperbole in his sermons, sometimes introducing gruesome notions about running people through with javelins and so forth, I believe the one explains the other: Brigham was trying to shock people out of their complacency by "giving them hell."

I think AKS has a legitimate beef. The biggest slaughter of human beings in the US at the time occured under his watch. So say what you will about his involvement (or lack of) but to me it appears his hyperbole filled "gruesome" "giving them hell" type attitude appears to have come back and bit him in the backside.

I think us hateful race-baiters may be attributing too much to him, but I have no doubt you are attempting to attribute too little.

[juliann]

I think AKS has a legitimate beef. The biggest slaughter of human beings in the US at the time occured under his watch. So say what you will about his involvement (or lack of) but to me it appears his hyperbole filled "gruesome" "giving them hell" type attitude appears to have come back and bit him in the backside.

Just a guess....but I'd be willing to wager that slavery caused far more deaths. But hey...what the heck, eh? Who noticed. But then...this thread really has nothing to do with blacks, as Pahoran noted...it is all about finding something...anything....to use as a brickbat. Blacks are always handy it seems.

[Mor-Atheist]

Juliann,

Are you kidding me? Are you attempting to say that everyone who has posted on here that is against BY's stance is merely using blacks to prove a point?

I guess you got me, I could care less about black people, as long as I can use them to prove Brigham is not a prophet they have some value....Unbelievable

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Since you threw in some off topic remarks:

No, I don't believe I did. I introduced some reasons why a reasonable person might be disposed to be cautious about taking a strict, overly-literalist construction of Brigham's remarks. Since "Observer" keeps harping that Brigham's remarks and what they mean are the sole topic of this thread, my remarks are completely on-topic.

Here is another relevant fact: Brigham came from a tradition wherein people were used to "hellfire and damnation" sermons; but he was preaching to a people who did not believe in a literal burning hell. When we take this relevant fact with the earlier mentioned relevant fact that Brigham used a lot of hyperbole in his sermons, sometimes introducing gruesome notions about running people through with javelins and so forth, I believe the one explains the other: Brigham was trying to shock people out of their complacency by "giving them hell."

I think AKS has a legitimate beef. The biggest slaughter of human beings in the US at the time occured under his watch.

Really? Did you really mean to say that "Injuns" are not human beings, or did you just misspeak?

Or does "at the time" mean "in that week?"

There is an MMM thread ongoing. I don't wish to drag it all in here; but suffice it to say that there are very strong evidence-based arguments that Brigham has nothing to answer for WRT that tragedy; while the arguments of the "prosecution" are strained and unconvincing at best. Just IMHO, of course.

So say what you will about his involvement (or lack of) but to me it appears his hyperbole filled "gruesome" "giving them hell" type attitude appears to have come back and bit him in the backside.

That's right. The fact that a hostile army was on their doorstep at the time had nothing to do with it; one day, out of the blue, the good folks of Iron County just up and decided to carry out some of ol' brother Brigham's "blood atonement" sermons, just to be good Mormons. All the other emigrant trains, before and since, that found the Mountain Meadow to be the safest part of the journey were just plumb lucky.

Puh-leeeze.

I think us hateful race-baiters may be attributing too much to him, but I have no doubt you are attempting to attribute too little.

I think not.

You subsequently wrote:

Are you kidding me? Are you attempting to say that everyone who has posted on here that is against BY's stance is merely using blacks to prove a point?

It was me who said it, and I will stand by it. I think that everyone who has tried to exploit Brigham's remarks to leverage some kind of "false prophet" argument, AND brushed aside any review of the cultural context, the legal background or the scriptural references, AND tried to exclude any consideration of his actual deeds from the discussion, is doing so merely to prove a point.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Abulafia]

Juliann, apologies have been thinking about one of your comments.

Juliann said:Actually, Mormons stayed with the Cain stuff...it was the rest of Christianity who went to Ham to avoid the implication that if blacks came from Cain they would have to have been made in the image of God. It was only Darwinism that settled the argument of who belonged to the human race. In other words, this was not a Mormon idea...it was around long before they were a twinkle in God's eye.

Juliann, I don't particularly understand your reasoning above, but

you stated that the church went down the 'curse of Cain' road, not Ham, but I was ALWAYS informed that since the church seemed to accept a literal universal flood, that Cain's seed continued through Ham on Noah's Ark. (and thence through the Canaanites) My Jamaican friends were happy to recite this and it was their understanding also. Here's the justification from BY

Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then other curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290 291