Brigham Young and extreme racism

[Observer]

Some will further use this to cite how confused Mormons are. But I think it does talk to a community in it's early beginnings trying to figure out how to go about dealing with authority and regulation and getting better understanding what should be declared revelation or not. I think it shows a healthy begining to such processes.

We can pull up about ten pages of quotes with these prophets themselves saying they were not always speaking "for the Lord" but for the accusations of racism to stick the critic has to fall back on fundamentalism and not allow that. Nor can an incipient religion be allowed any trial and error, change or growth.

Oh but we aren't pulling up "ten pages of quotes".

We're just discussing this "death on the spot" quote.

A few questions (requesting fallible opinions only):

- Was this ever the Law of God? (Remember, it's just your opinion...no bold proclamations of "God's Law" are necessary.)

- Was this simply Brigham's common racism of the day show through, masquerading as a proclamation defining a "Law of God".

- What do the words "Law of God" mean, and why should I trust your "fallible" opinion over the words of the Prophet.

- Do you intend to explain to Brigham Young in the hereafter that "well that's your opinion, Brother Brigham." Or maybe you'll question Brigham as to the reason he proclaimed that God says 'this' (Law of God), when God really doesn't think any such thing (according to you).

- Did Brigham Young intend his sermon to be interpreted as his own, fallible opinion? If so, why do you think he used plain and clear language in explaining a "Law of God" from the pulpit of the tabernacle.

I read a lot on this board about anti-mormons forcing God's hand on any issue they disagree with. Is that not also happening with LDS members here? Are you not forcing the LAW OF GOD, proclaimed plainly by the Prophet to fall in line with YOUR personal views regarding which sermons are prophesy, and which sermons are "goose eggs"??

[Tarski]

By the way, I do so enjoy the technique of changing the meaning of words to help alleviate doctrinal problems like is done with the words everlasting or eternal.

Look at the original greek or hebrew when these are used.

Tarski, I didn't know you knew Greek! I just did a year of it to spruce up my skills. Now give me the Greek words that you think mean eternal or everlasting and let's take a look.

This issue has come up before a few times. I looked it up a few times. I don't need to speak fluent greek or hebrew to check it out.

Better approach. If you think the words eternal, unchanging, everlasting as in the KJV don't mean what I think they do, then show me why not using your greek. You give me a reason to think that the words eternal or everlasting are translations of something that really means "of God" and that they do not have any meaning of duration. I think know what these word mean. Give me a reason to think they mean something else in the Bible.

[koakaipo]

Mor-some fallible interpretations at your request.

I think history is helpful in giving some perspective.

I think looking at leadership style is important. I think in terms of leadership styles, JS was a authoritative, but seemed to have a flexibility in terms of reconsidering long held notions or beliefs. You see him sorta alter or reconsider ideas that previously seemed very firm. BY was a very authoritative leader, and tended to be much more rigid in reconsideration. I'd say he probably have the most authoritative leadership style, which made sense in some ways for the times he was leading in. Now look at David O'McKay and you see a very collegiate leadership style-he was big on consensus and counsel and was quite careful in terms of public assertions. Alot of his personal reflections give a more full view of where he stood on some issues, and shows how he was very cautious in terms of how he spoke publicly as a leader.

I think this personal style manifests in how the church leader leads really. I think it explains why BY for instance has a very firm, consistent way of asserting his beliefs. He wasn't one to necessarily back down. He seemed quite comfortable with public assertions that he felt were inspired. He specificially said he doesn't need to say "Thus sayeth the Lord" for it to be inspired for instance. And that style is understandable when you see how his natural leading style was. And I think David O'McKay is an interesting person to sorta compare him to in that O'McKay's different style lead to a very different way of leading and using his influence to make things happen.

[Observer]

Of course, there's this one small detail: Brigham is explaining from the pulpit in the tabernacle of the Lord what the LAW OF GOD is.

All arguments falling back on Brigham's personal fallibility and his personal racist beliefs common of the day are all nonsense! Brigham isn't giving us a secret about his personal views people...he's explaining the LAW OF GOD.

So are we gonna get more of the same, Clintonesque weasel arguments

Better than Goebbelsesque demagogue arguments

explaining that when the PROPHET of GOD stands at the PULPIT and EXPLAINS THE LAW OF GOD and the duration of the law (ALWAYS) --- well this shouldn't count for anything more than Brigham's personal favorite number or color. We should take his sermon with a wee grain of salt...coincidentally, the sermon is entirely UNACCAPTABLE by today's standards. That wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

Maybe.

Then again, maybe the fact of what law this PROPHET of GOD enacted when he had the chance (remember that Brigham was territorial governor.)

Was there an anti-miscegenation law in Utah in his time?

Yes there was.

And did it prescribe the death penalty?

Prepare to be shocked:

No.

It prescribed that slaves should be confiscated from their masters.

Because the only form of miscegenation it proscribed was masters taking advantage of their female slaves.

That was it, and that was ALL of it.

Brigham was a master of hyperbole. Those who try to build a case against him based upon his words would have us believe that he was a mass murderer, but when it came to his actual deeds, you couldn't convict him of assaulting someone with a wet noodle.

Oh, and Pahoran, I have the entire 26 volume set of the Journal of Discourses at my fingertips. Are you implying that the Journal of Discourses does NOT contain racist sermons spoken by Brigham Young, or that Brigham Young simply never gave racist sermons, or that proof the Journal of Discourses ever existed, or that this plainly stated, deplorable racist paragraph could possibly be misinterpreted without pages of "context" ---- or all of the above?

None of the above.

English isn't your first language, I take it?

My argument is nothing more or less than: when an anti-Mormon confines himself to quoting the standard anti-Mormon prooftexts, that's where he got them from.

Regards,

Pahoran

A fine example of hyperbole.

I am simply "shocked" regarding forms of miscegenation proscribed...territory...[depends on what the meaning of "is" is...] Really, my jaw is wide open. (Actually, I truly am in awe at your ability to change and confuse the subject at hand. Clintonesque by my definition. The issue is simple, yet you've confused me like a 'deer in the headlights' with your mastery of the english language.)

Were we discussing territorial laws? Were we discussing Brigham Young's hyperbolic tendencies? Were we discussing my english skills? (Well, I assume your answer is "yes" for all three questions.) Am I to assume this is your definition of "context" we all must understand before misinterpreting what a Prophet of the Lord possibly could have meant with such vile, plainly spoken racist filth?

That's odd. I was under the impression that we were discussing Brigham Young's specific sermon where he declared the "LAW OF GOD" proscribing a penalty of "DEATH ON THE SPOT" for interracial relations between the "CHOSEN SEED" and the "AFRICAN RACE".

It's not that complicated really.

[juliann]

Oh but we aren't pulling up "ten pages of quotes".

We're just discussing this "death on the spot" quote.

A few questions (requesting fallible opinions only):

Yes...conveniently ignore the many, many proclamations that prophets do not always speak as prophets so you can continue riding your hobby horse without interference.

Your "questions" are leading to say the least. Here is a way to cut through the proverbial crap by bringing in a neutral set of questions that will get to the heart of the matter:

Does a false assessment of the historical situation turn a true prophet into a false prophet for that particular historical hour? Is false or true prophecy a permanent state, or can true prophets become false and false true,  regardless of their title, motivation, or call?  Were prophets ever completely assured of their own status, or did they walk

[juliann]

That's odd. I was under the impression that we were discussing Brigham Young's specific sermon where he declared the "LAW OF GOD" proscribing a penalty of "DEATH ON THE SPOT" for interracial relations between the "CHOSEN SEED" and the "AFRICAN RACE".

It's not that complicated really.

So your position is that BY was saying there was a law of God that any sex with Africans would result in instantaneous death. Correct?

[juliann]

such vile, plainly spoken racist filth?

*snort* Your self-proclaimed perfection and moral superiority are just....so inspiring.

[juliann]

I think this personal style manifests in how the church leader leads really. I think it explains why BY for instance has a very firm, consistent way of asserting his beliefs. He wasn't one to necessarily back down. He seemed quite comfortable with public assertions that he felt were inspired. He specificially said he doesn't need to say "Thus sayeth the Lord" for it to be inspired for instance. And that style is understandable when you see how his natural leading style was. And I think David O'McKay is an interesting person to sorta compare him to in that O'McKay's different style lead to a very different way of leading and using his influence to make things happen.

The fundamentalist does not allow for individualism, K.

[Tchild2]

Julianne wrote:

So your position is that BY was saying there was a law of God that any sex with Africans would result in instantaneous death. Correct?

It seems the position that BY was advocating was death on the spot whether it referred to a spiritual death, or death by human intervention on God's behalf...kind of like the practice of stoning adulterers of old. God doesn't do the messy work, his servants do.

[Observer]

Oh but we aren't pulling up "ten pages of quotes".

We're just discussing this "death on the spot" quote.

A few questions (requesting fallible opinions only):

Yes...conveniently ignore the many, many proclamations that prophets do not always speak as prophets so you can continue riding your hobby horse without interference.

Your "questions" are leading to say the least. Here is a way to cut through the proverbial crap by bringing in a neutral set of questions that will get to the heart of the matter:

Does a false assessment of the historical situation turn a true prophet into a false prophet for that particular historical hour? Is false or true prophecy a permanent state, or can true prophets become false and false true,

[Observer]

That's odd. I was under the impression that we were discussing Brigham Young's specific sermon where he declared the "LAW OF GOD" proscribing a penalty of "DEATH ON THE SPOT" for interracial relations between the "CHOSEN SEED" and the "AFRICAN RACE".

It's not that complicated really.

So your position is that BY was saying there was a law of God that any sex with Africans would result in instantaneous death. Correct?

I guess you need to ask Brigham Young what he meant. Obviously his sermon was so vague and the concept so advanced and complicated that no human being could possibly decipher the true meaning of his confusing style.

Juliann, the concept of God penalizing "race mixers" with "death on the spot" is indeed ridiculous and outrageous (as you insinuated). How anybody could believe such a thing LITERALLY is simply beyond me.

Are you wondering how I could believe Brigham intended such a thing? Hmmm, well frankly, Brigham's telling the story here, not me. You may need to address your concerns to him directly. Go ask Brigham why he said such a thing - LITERALLY, and attributed it to God.

I get where you're going with this, though. Believe me, I realized the idiotic nature of this 'God is the racist, take it up with him' mentality long ago. Racists who attribute their racism directly to God certainly are ridiculous. But then, none of this logic is possible while we're discussing the one person alive on the planet who speaks directly for the Lord. Either he's speaking for the Lord when he says he is or he isn't. If he isn't, the church has a few bigger problems than a true prophet with racist tendencies.

[Mighty Curelom]

"What, just because BY wasn't perfect, he can't be a prophet?"

This wasn't a minor faux pas. This isn't a case of BY not washing his garments frequently enough, or missing a sacrament meeting. Brigham Young's racism was a great evil which influenced (or singlehandedly created) the anti-black attitude of the LDS church for a century, and whose influence can STILL be seen today in the popular culture of rural Mormons. That racism was prevalent during BY's time is irrelevant. It was prevalent during Joseph Smith's time too, yet JS had an entirely different perspective on race.

I wouldn't expect a prophet of God to be perfect. But I would at the very least, at the absolute minimum expect a prophet of God to do no great evil. You can't even say that about Brigham Young.

[Benji]

"What, just because BY wasn't perfect, he can't be a prophet?"

This wasn't a minor faux pas. This isn't a case of BY not washing his garments frequently enough, or missing a sacrament meeting. Brigham Young's racism was a great evil which influenced (or singlehandedly created) the anti-black attitude of the LDS church for a century, and whose influence can STILL be seen today in the popular culture of rural Mormons. That racism was prevalent during BY's time is irrelevant. It was prevalent during Joseph Smith's time too, yet JS had an entirely different perspective on race.

I wouldn't expect a prophet of God to be perfect. But I would at the very least, at the absolute minimum expect a prophet of God to do no great evil. You can't even say that about Brigham Young.

I completely agree.

Young's racist beliefs were taught for many years in the Mormon church as standard doctrine. Consider the following from Mormon Doctrine published in 1966:

"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned

[koakaipo]

BEnji-there weren't "Young's" beliefs-they had legs of their own. I think it was something much more widespread in terms of attitudes and what was considered "common knowledge" to be quite honest. You have to understand when the ban was instituted, it really didn't even need justification, because "common knowledge" of that time and place included socially racist understandings of blacks being from Cain and Ham, and the implications of those lineages. We are talking the mid-1800's-that give some historical context for race.

And although you seem to link "Mormon Doctrine" as a sort of extension of Young's beliefs, and Young would have disapproved of the characterization of MD by Mckonkie. Young outwardly disagreed with the pre-existence theory that Mckonkie's book asserted.

There were a variety of ways people processed the ban, some are rooted in ideas that precede Mormonism(Ham and Cain go several hundred years back for instance) while some ideas were rooted in religious notions unique to Mormonism(using scriptural support, although this didn't have until decades after the institution of the ban).

And "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't actually Mormon doctrine-it was a book with a very authoritative name but happened to be a sort of encyclopedia with definitions compiled by an apostle who didn't even get it published through Deseret. It lacked that sort of authoritative quality. Most of the entries? Pretty benign. But some of the entries, including race and religions, were very controversial, among the leadership included.

I think a very thorough study of this subject's history is Armand Mauss' "All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Concepts of Race and Lineage." It gives a very object overview of the whole subject.

[Benji]

BEnji-there weren't "Young's" beliefs-they had legs of their own. I think it was something much more widespread in terms of attitudes and what was considered "common knowledge" to be quite honest. You have to understand when the ban was instituted, it really didn't even need justification, because "common knowledge" of that time and place included socially racist understandings of blacks being from Cain and Ham, and the implications of those lineages. We are talking the mid-1800's-that give some historical context for race.

And although you seem to link "Mormon Doctrine" as a sort of extension of Young's beliefs, and Young would have disapproved of the characterization of MD by Mckonkie. Young outwardly disagreed with the pre-existence theory that Mckonkie's book asserted.

There were a variety of ways people processed the ban, some are rooted in ideas that precede Mormonism(Ham and Cain go several hundred years back for instance) while some ideas were rooted in religious notions unique to Mormonism(using scriptural support, although this didn't have until decades after the institution of the ban).

And "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't actually Mormon doctrine-it was a book with a very authoritative name but happened to be a sort of encyclopedia with definitions compiled by an apostle who didn't even get it published through Deseret. It lacked that sort of authoritative quality. Most of the entries? Pretty benign. But some of the entries, including race and religions, were very controversial, among the leadership included.

I think a very thorough study of this subject's history is Armand Mauss' "All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Concepts of Race and Lineage." It gives a very object overview of the whole subject.

What about the verses from 2 Nephi?

Benji

[Benji]

You have to understand when the ban was instituted, it really didn't even need justification, because "common knowledge" of that time and place included socially racist understandings of blacks being from Cain and Ham, and the implications of those lineages. We are talking the mid-1800's-that give some historical context for race.

It seems that a prophet of God should be advocating truth and not the "common knowledge" of that time.

Benji

[koakaipo]

Those verses in terms of the ban? In terms of the ban, the "curse of the pharoah" in the book of Abraham was the one used for scriptural support, but only decades after the fact. BY never personally cited scripture for his justification for the ban.

In terms of overt associations with skin color and using it as a marker for righteousness-yes, the BOM is more overt in such associations than the Bible. I think people tended to historically believe these verses literally. I think in a more modern context, people tend to take them more figuratively and symbolically from what I've seen.

I got a shade of brown on me personally that gets quite a darker shade of brown during the summer, and yet I tend to not think of myself as becoming less righteously literally. I just think I'm lucky I don't have to mystic tan and get that orange hue that's disturbing. Attempting to use skin color as a marker for righteousness in a literal sense is hard to do on planet earth-weather sorta influences such things.

As for cursings and mixing seeds-eh, that's a little less unique. There's alot of that in the Bible for instance, alot of talk of segregation, even annihilation and genocide in terms of how to view the enemy.

[koakaipo]

You have to understand when the ban was instituted, it really didn't even need justification, because "common knowledge" of that time and place included socially racist understandings of blacks being from Cain and Ham, and the implications of those lineages. We are talking the mid-1800's-that give some historical context for race.

It seems that a prophet of God should be advocating truth and not the "common knowledge" of that time.

Benji

Benji-that quote was not in regards to the prophet, but the followers. For BY to even institute the ban, there weren't alot of raised eyebrows. More like common nods like, sure, makes sense to me. That is my point. And it's pointing to the fact that "common knowledge" for that era made is seem quite logical, even a bit slow in coming, to institute a ban on people considered to be of such lineage.

As for a prophet advocating truth. If JS seemed to be advocating such truths, does he seem more viable an option of a prophet to you, really? Cause he did advocate ideas and notions that were progressive for his time in terms of social distance deals with blacks, and how he saw their potential as a race.

As for BY himself, I think Mauss gives a very interesting and accurate account of the events that may have influenced the institution of the ban. It's an interesting read really.

[Dunamis]

What about the verses from 2 Nephi?

Benji

Your topic is Brigham Young. You need to stop hopping from topic to topic and respond to the points other posters are making in your own thread.

[Benji]

Your topic is Brigham Young. You need to stop hopping from topic to topic and respond to the points other posters are making in your own thread.

My topic was Brigham Young and extreme racism. The verses from 2 Nephi are relevant to this discussion in my opinion.

Benji

[Dunamis]

Benji, I am trying very hard here. When a poster gives you a thoughtful and lengthy response about Brigham Young, completely ignoring the content and jumping to "What about the verses from 2 Nephi?" is not appropriate.

For the rest of you, if you want to have a civil discussion in an attempt to analyze and understand race relations in any church you are welcome to do so. If your intent is to thump your chest and proclaim your disgust with the unenlightened and unwashed masses take it elsewhere.

Everyone has expressed their feelings. Move on. If you have nothing more to add then move out.

[Benji]

Benji, I am trying very hard here. When a poster gives you a thoughtful and lengthy response about Brigham Young, completely ignoring the content and jumping to "What about the verses from 2 Nephi?" is not appropriate.

I was just curious about what he thought about those verses since that was the only thing he didn't respond to with regard to that particular post. I have seen many people on this board do similarly without being scolded.

Benji

Moderator: Posters who have a history of producing substance are treated differently than those who do not have a history. You still have not read our board policy have you.

[Moksha]

Benji, yes there was racism, but the Church has moved on from that point and no longer holds those views.

What would it take for you to let go of any feelings surrounding this past racism?

[Benji]

Benji, yes there was racism, but the Church has moved on from that point and no longer holds those views.

What would it take for you to let go of any feelings surrounding this past racism?

Moksha,

This is one of many problems I have with Mormonism. I find it very difficult to give any creedence to an institution whose founders held such views. Additionally, Mormon scripture also contains such views. The other thing regarding racism is the changes that have been made which seem to coincide with the politics of the day.

Benji

[Platypus Man]

Benji, yes there was racism, but the Church has moved on from that point and no longer holds those views.

What would it take for you to let go of any feelings surrounding this past racism?

Moksha,

This is one of many problems I have with Mormonism. I find it very difficult to give any creedence to an institution whose founders held such views. Additionally, Mormon scripture also contains such views. The other thing regarding racism is the changes that have been made which seem to coincide with the politics of the day.

Benji

If the ban was based off politics, it would have happened one or two decades earlier during the height of the civil rights movement. Not in the late seventies.