Brigham Young and extreme racism

[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.

Actually, civil rights continued into the 70's and it is possible that the issue was not as widely known about in the 60's.

Benji

[Platypus Man]

Well, I think if it was purely politically motivated, it would have happened much sooner when all the other christian churches dropped their racist stances.

[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.

I read the policy but I did not see where it discusses posters with a history versus posters without a history. Perhaps I missed it? Please direct me to the correct location.

Benji

[koakaipo]

Benji-if you actually look at the timing of the ban lifting, it was quite anti-climatic in terms of it's date. An interesting thing to see in terms of a timeline and events preceding the ban is that non-Mormon pressure WITHIN Utah seemed to have less an effect in terms of steps to lift the ban than Mormon influences OUTSIDE of Utah(S. America for instance) did.

Mormons really have no problems being "peculiar" and out of step with the rest of society. If anything, we sorta dig it culturally I think. So I don't think we have too much of problem of being characterized as un-pc really.

[Benji]

Mormons really have no problems being "peculiar" and out of step with the rest of society. If anything, we sorta dig it culturally I think. So I don't think we have too much of problem of being characterized as un-pc really.

Maybe individually, but as an institution it is bad Public Relations to have a racist doctrine that denies a certain people privileges because of their race.

Benji

[Platypus Man]

Mormons really have no problems being "peculiar" and out of step with the rest of society. If anything, we sorta dig it culturally I think. So I don't think we have too much of problem of being characterized as un-pc really.

Maybe individually, but as an institution it is bad Public Relations to have a racist doctrine that denies a certain people privileges because of their race.

Benji

Better tell the christians and jews to get a new Bible then

[koakaipo]

NO, Not individually only, but institutionally, Mormonism has no qualms about being the odd man out. You know why? We are a young religion-we were the odd man out for a long time socially. It's a natural position for us in some ways, to not be in step with society.

Our culture and the larger culture met at an intersection breifly post-WWII; but then the hippies came on the scene and all that free love and pot and anti-war protests, and Mormonism retrenched again socially. We really have no qualms being out of step with society if we feel we are in the right institutionally. Mauss actually has a great book on this too-about Mormonism's uneasy relationship with the larger culture throughout it's history. Great read really too.....

The lifting of the ban, or the lack thereof really, is an example of this int erms of timing. The timing of the actual ban does not intersect with the highest point of social pressure from the outside culture.

[Benji]

Better tell the christians and jews to get a new Bible then

Please cite the portion of the Bible you are referring to.

Benji

[Benji]

NO, Not individually only, but institutionally, Mormonism has no qualms about being the odd man out.

I'm going to have to disagree with you because I believe there is a concerted effort by the Mormon church to be seen as a mainstream Christian Church. I saw Gordon B. Hinkley interviewed by Larry King where he flat out lied about the Mormon teaching on the nature of God. Again, many Mormon teachings are very unorthodox and are not good for Public Relations.

Benji

[Platypus Man]

Better tell the christians and jews to get a new Bible then

Please cite the portion of the Bible you are referring to.

Benji

The Cannanite woman being referred to as a dog. (Matt 15:26)

The preaching of the gospel being denied to the gentiles. Was preached to Jews only until it was revealed to Paul that this was no longer the case. (Acts 10, Acts 11:1-18, Acts 13:46)

Only those of the Levite tribe holding the priesthood in the OT (Everywhere in OT)

Israel being a chosen nation (OT theme)

these are just off the top of my head, there may be more

[Benji]

The Cannanite woman being referred to as a dog. (Matt 15:26)

The preaching of the gospel being denied to the gentiles. Was preached to Jews only until it was revealed to Paul that this was no longer the case. (Acts 10, Acts 11:1-18, Acts 13:46)

Only those of the Levite tribe holding the priesthood in the OT (Everywhere in OT)

Israel being a chosen nation (OT theme)

these are just off the top of my head, there may be more

These examples are not comparable to the statements by Brigham or the priesthood doctrine that was changed. It was never the law of God that an entire race was cursed due to something they did in a former life.

Benji

[koakaipo]

NO, Not individually only, but institutionally, Mormonism has no qualms about being the odd man out.

I'm going to have to disagree with you because I believe there is a concerted effort by the Mormon church to be seen as a mainstream Christian Church. I saw Gordon B. Hinkley interviewed by Larry King where he flat out lied about the Mormon teaching on the nature of God. Again, many Mormon teachings are very unorthodox and are not good for Public Relations.

Benji

You are talking about two very different animals here though, Benji.

You are talking about two different eras as well.

You are talking about a hot button social issue like the lifting of the ban and it's perceived racial implications from the general public. To me, a more fitting comparison would be about the activist position the church has taken in terms of gay marriage initiatives. This is another hot button issue, it's a divise issue, taking an activist stand will put the church in the un-pc cateogory. But that's not a big problem on a issue that it is very firm about. The church has gotten alot of very public heat about this stance, and yet you don't see a sort of backing away here.

Secondly, I think Mormonism is in some ways a very mainstream church on one level. It's very Americana on one level. But theologically and when it comes to high ritual such as the temple, it's not-so Americana.

As for GBH, I think there are variety of reasons given why people think he interviewed the way he did. I think most people think it's a milk before the meat deal. I'm not sure personally.

My point is that in character, there are things that are very mainstream about Mormon culture. It's very apple pie in many respects. Other parts of it isn't as much though. It's a mix in that sense to me, and not necessarily a coverup. I think Mauss' book is called the "Angel and the Beehive"--deals alot with these issues in terms of how Mormonism and American culture/society interact throughout Mormonism's history.

[koakaipo]

These examples are not comparable to the statements by Brigham or the priesthood doctrine that was changed. It was never the law of God that an entire race was cursed due to something they did in a former life.

Benji

Brigham Young fervently argued AGAINST the notion that people of Cain's lineage did anything in their former life to warrant what happened now. He did not subscribe to the pre-existence theory.

It was more of a fact of what lineage they were, of what tribe. That is comparable to biblical exmples.

[Benji]

You are talking about two very different animals here though, Benji.

You are talking about two different eras as well.

You are talking about a hot button social issue like the lifting of the ban and it's perceived racial implications from the general public.

Either way, my point is that it is bad PR to hold these kinds of views.

I think Mormonism is in some ways a very mainstream church on one level. It's very Americana on one level. But theologically and when it comes to high ritual such as the temple, it's not-so Americana.

You can say that again! The changes to the temple ceremony are another problem I have that I think was also motivated by the whole PR thing.

As for GBH, I think there are variety of reasons given why people think he interviewed the way he did. I think most people think it's a milk before the meat deal. I'm not sure personally.

Well, I think he didn't want to go there on National TV because the Mormon version of god is completely opposed to traditional Christian thought and it would have been a PR nightmare.

Benji

[Benji]

Brigham Young fervently argued AGAINST the notion that people of Cain's lineage did anything in their former life to warrant what happened now. He did not subscribe to the pre-existence theory.

Please cite your source.

Benji

[koakaipo]

Brigham Young fervently argued AGAINST the notion that people of Cain's lineage did anything in their former life to warrant what happened now. He did not subscribe to the pre-existence theory.

Please cite your source.

Benji

"Brigham Young, however, did not feel it necessary to appeal beyond the curse of Cain to the preexistence. When asked "if the spirits of negroes were neutral, in Heaven" he answered,

"NO, they were not, there were no neutral spirits in Heaven,"he answered."No, they were not, there were not neutral spirits in heaven at the same time of the rebellion, all took sides...All spirits are pure that came from the presence of God. The poserity of Cain are black because he commited murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles."

Bush, Lester; Mauss, Aramand. "Neither White Nor Black." p. 72

[koakaipo]

It may be bad PR, but you see different responses, not consistent responses, to such publicity.

As for temple ritual, the funny thing is it may be just that-a cultural difference. My father's culture is POlynesian. POlynesians have culturally gravitated towards Mormonism. The temple ritual is not a cultural shock for them. However, some of theAmericana aspects of Mormonism is actually more of a cultural shock. So, it could be just a matter of perspective more than anything in my opinion.

[Avatar4321]

"Brigham Young, however, did not feel it necessary to appeal beyond the curse of Cain to the preexistence. When asked "if the spirits of negroes were neutral, in Heaven" he answered, "NO, they were not, there were no neutral spirits in Heaven,"he answered."No, they were not, there were not neutral spirits in heaven at the same time of the rebellion, all took sides...All spirits are pure that came from the presence of God. The poserity of Cain are black because he commited murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles."

Bush, Lester; Mauss, Aramand. "Neither White Nor Black." p. 72

In an effort to preempt the next logical question:

Where does that source cite?

[Benji]

As for temple ritual, the funny thing is it may be just that-a cultural difference. My father's culture is POlynesian. POlynesians have culturally gravitated towards Mormonism. The temple ritual is not a cultural shock for them. However, some of theAmericana aspects of Mormonism is actually more of a cultural shock. So, it could be just a matter of perspective more than anything in my opinion.

Well, we are all entitled to an opinion and mine is that the numerous changes in Mormonism are indicative of the fact that it is a man-made religion.

Benji

[koakaipo]

Journal HIstory, 25 Dec. 1869, citing "Willford Woodruff's Journal."

EDIT-Benji-agreed in terms of different perspectives. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. Just clarifying where my pov is coming from as someone who is of a certain color, who does identify as a liberal and a feminist, and who still finds a home in MOrmonism quite comfortably.

[Abulafia]

I'll stick my neck up for a choppin' here and say that this is one of the big problems I had with church doctrine.

I always thought of Peters sheet where all peoples would be taught the words of Jesus, I couldn't reconcile that with Brigham Young's (or the churches - up to the 70's) stance on people of colour.

I well remember the racism that I found on my first trip to Utah, though as Koakaipo says much of it is due to being in a cultural bubble over there!

I also well remember the missionaries advise to not teach people of colour. (pre the change in doctrine)

I appreciate that racist and elitist elements exist in the OT, I don't like that either.

I appreciate the argument that says that Brigham Young was a reflection of a culture in which blacks were regarded as nothing more than slaves.

However, the church transended culture to initiate one of the most controversial doctrines of their time - polygamy.

This is one aspect of the doctrine of the church (towards people of colour) that I will never accept, [unless God tells me better, and he never did], as God given.

[Benji]

I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. Just clarifying where my pov is coming from as someone who is of a certain color, who does identify as a liberal and a feminist, and who still finds a home in MOrmonism quite comfortably.

Well, that is certainly the first time I have ever heard of a liberal feminist who feels comfortable as a Mormon. For some reason, I have a feeling it will likely be the only time.

Benji

[koakaipo]

Benji-I think you may not know enough ladies my age or younger than. I'm not some freak. I took women's studies courses with a bunch of like minded students at church college with bed wetting feminist Mormon professors. It happens, what do you do?

I have a sister in law, an RM, at Yale Divinity right now who's focus of research is feminist studies in relation to American religion. She's met alot of wonderful bed wetting Mormon folks over there. Again, how do you account for that?

My point is honestly, Benji, I think you need some perspective. If you were here long enough, I have not problems railing on what I find a problem in how we deal with race within our community.I don't think you can briskly distance yourself from it and move on. I think you gotta be able to look back more to figure out how not to do the same things again.

But do you honestly not realize how patronizing your remarks are consistently about racism here? I'm a brown chick, I've dealt with crazy prejudice! I was token brown kid as well as token Mormon brown kid, in a very prejudiced Protestant neighborhood. I couldn't go into some houses-I don't know if it was the color or religion that accounted for it. I had to have my mom go down to the district and demand the put me in the proper academic levels for school-they tested me three times before I got the go ahead! And I'm only 33-it's not like I'm ancient!

I know what racism looks and tastes and feels like. And I'm sorry but some of the righteous indignation that is coming off on this thread while not even hinting at the notion that it could probably be used even closer to home is what bowls me over. I mean, come on! Now one needs to lecture me about racism , institutional racism, or inequality in various manifestations.

What I would like you to know though is that when religion does touch other cultures, those cultures make it there own. It's just something that goes out into the universe, and those that sent it out there don';t necessarily own it anymore. Religion, in it's various forms, works that way-it's not static or contained. And each new member becomes a sort of reformer and puts it's own touch on it. That's the success of Christianity-it's ability to manifest in various ways throughout the ages and cultures it touches.....

[Benji]

I know what racism looks and tastes and feels like. And I'm sorry but some of the righteous indignation that is coming off on this thread while not even hinting at the notion that it could probably be used even closer to home is what bowls me over. I mean, come on! Now one needs to lecture me about racism , institutional racism, or inequality in various manifestations.

I was never trying to lecture you on anything. My point has always been that Mormonism is a religion with racist origins and doctrines that have been changed for better PR. This is my opinion. You are entitled to disagree.

Benji

[koakaipo]

Okay, your last post sounded a bit presumptious though, please notice. It's hard to discern one's tone in posts, however, I agree.

Secondly, let me again give you some things to consider other than motivations to change racial policies were based soley on cynical and PR related reasons.

If you can, try to google up "The Fading of the Pharoah's Curse" by ARmand L. Mauss. I'm sure it's out there somewhere. It is a paper that gives a very concise timeline in terms of the events that were leading up to the steps of the lifting of the ban.

Some things to consider is that it was around the 50's that the church began to internationalize at a wider scale. Also, the scope of the ban was administratively narrowed before the civil rights movement got any traction. The paper deals with many more things, but two examples help to think about how leadership was attempting to process the ban at this point as well as the fact that traditional notions of lineage and race would be challenged with the internationalization fo the church. I think this paper would be of use to you.