Brigham Young and extreme racism

[Zakuska]

"Not Gods Law"

I didn't "innsinuate" any such thing.

[Mor-Atheist]

Zakuska,

Please clarify, does his stance on slavery have anything to do with someone dying on the spot for mixing seed? If so, please demonstrate what.

[Zakuska]

Who is he charging with "mixing Seed"?

White Pro-Slavery Abusers. You also missed the scripture he uses to attach the two ideas.

[Moksha]

This specific statement was addressed a long time ago on this board, presenting the strong possibility that BY was actually addressing here the disgusting practice of white men taking sexual advantage of black female slaves.

You could find that thread if you looked a little, rather than getting all foamy at the mouth about a man who, being rather dead, is not here to explain himself.

Interesting. Very interesting.

So on one hand, prophets aren't "infallible" and so we shouldn't be too shocked when they commit obvious "goose eggs" (Juliann's term). We should realize prophets aren't infallible, forgive their offenses and go on with business as normal.

I think this one quote by Brigham Young would be an easy example that prophet truly are fallible. And yet, with your explaining and rationalizing, are you attempting to remove the possibility that Brigham was just being "fallible"?

I always hear Mormons explaining away actions of Prophets with the "Prophets aren't infallible" line. And yet, when an obvious example comes up, it isn't that the Prophet might be showing his fallibility. Oh no, there's a good, complicated explanation here.

So is this the LDS motto? LDS Prophets are of course fallible... Just don't ask for any examples, because there aren't any that we're aware of.

btw, the idea that Brigham Young had the best intentions regarding the "African Race" by protecting them from rape is about the silliest, most Clintonesque idea I have ever heard. That's not just a few pages of context, eh? More like a few libraries of "context" to pull that malarkey out of Brigham's plainly worded explanation of a "Law of God".

I was always under the impression that Brigham spoke plainly and hade a no-nonsense, matter of fact style. Apparently, he was speaking in cryptic super code during this sermon. sheesh.

Reaching down for make believe apologetic answers can be fun, but as you point out simply saying Mea Culpa - admitting the mistake - is the best way to proceed.

God is not a racist and anything racist that was imputed to have come from God was simply made up by man. That is true from the earliest Genesis entry to today.

[Mor-Atheist]

Zakuska,

I went back and re-read this one another 4 times to see the connection (not sure if it is just not clear, or if I am fuzzy from a headcold) , I can kind of see how you can hold the view that he was trying to protect the slaves, but I think the way he did it was horrible "the chosen seed" "mixes his blood with the seed of Cain". So due to the language involved, I am not so sure if he is protecting someone, or saying the superior "chosen" race shouldn't drop to that level (which I don't think is as chivalrous as you are making it out to be).

I could be wrong, and welcome any comments that show me I am.

[Observer]

A bit of context:

The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black-hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Do you know this, Democrats? They have kindled the fire that is raging now from the north to the south, and from the south to the north. I am no abolitionist, neither am I a pro-slavery man; I hate some of their principles and especially some of their conduct, as I do the gates of hell. The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109, Brigham Young, March 8, 1863

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. 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.

- Brigham Young March 8 1963, JoD

Please point out the portion where Brigham Young is explaining God's Law against white slave holders raping black slave women. I wasted enough of my time already looking for it. It simply isn't there. Time for some magic dust, maybe it'll show up in the text.

[Zakuska]

The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black-hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Do you know this, Democrats? They have kindled the fire that is raging now from the north to the south, and from the south to the north. I am no abolitionist. Neither am I a proslavery man; I hate some of their principles and especially some of their conduct, as I do the gates of hell. The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.

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. 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.

The following saying of the prophet is fulfilled: "Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they his counsel; for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor. Arise and thrash O daughter of Zion, &c." God rules in the armies of Heaven and does his pleasure upon the earth, and no man can help it. Who can stay the hand of Jehovah, or turn aside the providences of the Almighty? I say to all men and all women, submit to God, to his ordinances and to His rule; serve Him, and cease your quarrelling, and stay the shedding of each other's blood.

If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.

I am neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man. If I could have been influenced by private injury to choose one side in preference to the other, I should certainly be against the pro-slavery side of the question, for it was pro-slavery men that pointed the bayonet at me and my brethren in Missouri, and said, "Damn you we will kill you." I have not much love for them, only in the Gospel. I would cause them to repent, if I could, and make them good men and a good community. I have no fellowship for their avarice, blindness, and ungodly actions. To be great, is to be good before the Heavens and before all good men. I will not fellowship the wicked in their sins, so help me God.

Take the whole Context Observer.

The Abolitionists and the pro-Slavery white men are who he is accusing of Abusing the Black man. (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind)

He is quoting

Micah 4

10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.

11

[Pahoran]

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.

No. You didn't.

Again, many Mormon teachings are very unorthodox and are not good for Public Relations.

Again, "PR" is less important to us than your wishful thinking would like to imagine.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Observer]

How 'bout if I flip 35 pages forward in the JoD volume and attribute whatever the concept there is to Brigham's plainly worded law of God regarding "race mixing", and associated penalties, eh?

In the paragraph you are referencing, Brigham is stating his position/opinion regarding relations and national conflicts of the day.

What does any of that have to do with Brigham Young clearly explaining the "LAW OF GOD"?

Is he again speaking for God in the text you highlighted? If so, it's odd he didn't preface his comments for clarity.

The two paragraphs are unrelated. One is Brigham Young's view of the circumstance, while the paragraph that is the topic of this thread is supposedly the view held BY GOD (Law of God).

[USU78]

Providing some context:

Miscegenation

Therein it was made clear that any sexual contact between white women and black men was to be considered rape, punishable by death. The law regarding white men having sex with black women made it a misdemeanor to try to marry, but the "availability upon demand" of free black women to white men was considered an incident of their whiteness not punishable at all.

This is the background against which BY spoke. If a black man could be (and often was) killed both antebellum and during reconstruction for "mixing his seed" with the "chosen seed" (and often was, usually without a trial), BY argues, then it is entirely fitting and proper for the white man who "mixes his seed" with a black woman to suffer the same fate.

Think, mon! Sheesh.

[Zakuska]

Whos flipping pages? The whole Idea is one complete statement. In 3 paragraphs in the same discourse on the same page.

Ive already referenced the "Race-Mixing" aversions of the Israelites. Which gives BYs... "LAW OF GOD" comments their context.

Gen. 21: 21 took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.

Gen. 24: 3 not take a wife . . . of the daughters of the Canaanites.

Gen. 26: 34 Esau . . . took to wife Judith the daughter of . . . the Hittite.

Gen. 27: 46 I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth.

Gen. 28: 9 Esau . . . took . . . the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.

Ex. 34: 16 thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring.

Deut. 7: 3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them.

Josh. 23: 12 remnant of these nations . . . make marriages with them.

Judg. 3: 6 gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.

Judg. 14: 3 a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines.

1 Kgs. 11: 4 his wives turned away his heart after other gods.

Ezra 9: 2 they have taken of their daughters for themselves.

Ezra 10: 10 transgressed, and have taken strange wives.

Neh. 10: 30 not give our daughters unto the people.

Neh. 13: 25 not give your daughters unto their sons.

Mal. 2: 11 hath married the daughter of a strange God.

2 Cor. 6: 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.

2 Ne. 5: 21 that they might not be enticing unto my people.

2 Ne. 5: 23 seed of him that mixeth with their seed.

Mosiah 25: 12 taken to wife the daughters of the Lamanites.

Alma 3: 8 that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions.

Alma 5: 57 come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate.

D&C 74: 5 believer should not be united to an unbeliever.

Moses 8: 14 sons of men . . . took them wives, even as they chose.

[Observer]

Whos flipping pages?  The whole Idea is one complete statement. In 3 paragraphs in the same discourse.

Ive already referenced the "Race-Mixing" aversions of the Israelites. Which gives BY... "LAW OF GOD" comments their context.

-snip-

No. Clearly the whole sermon isn't a single idea.

The statements preceeding and following the "Law of God in regard to the African Race" are in regards to the pro/anti slavery conflicts of the day and statements regarding the treatment of blacks in the nation. The sermon is all over the place. You'd like it to fit together neatly, but it doesn't.

Again, Brigham is clearly stating God's view of "race mixing" in that one paragraph. The "treatment of the negro" portion is Brigham's view of the matter. He doesn't claim it to be a "LAW OF GOD", as he boldly claims regarding "race mixing".

The national conflict of the day, treatment of slaves, etc. has NOTHING to do with God explaining HIS LAW (through Brigham) pertaining to the "CHOSEN RACE" mixing with the "AFRICAN RACE". There is no statement about rape at all, anywhere. This is really a stretch.

[Zakuska]

obsever,

The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black-hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Do you know this, Democrats? They have kindled the fire that is raging now from the north to the south, and from the south to the north. I am no abolitionist. Neither am I a proslavery man; I hate some of their principles and especially some of their conduct, as I do the gates of hell. The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.

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. 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.

"Their Conduct" of breaching Gods law of "race Mixing" speaks directly to the Jeffersons in the crowd.

All over the place?

More like a precision cut of a surgeons scalpol (sp).

I find BYs choice of words in presenting the idea very precise and cutting like a double edged sword should.

[koakaipo]

The two concepts of the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham had different implications for BY. Both these curses predate Mormonism over several hundred years.

The curse of Cain in general implicated the notion of not "mixing seed" with such a cursed line and people. Specifically for BY, "mixing seed" was a big problem in terms of keeping the priesthood closed to this line.

The curse of Ham in general society was often used to justify and champion slavery and servitude-because this alleged line had such a fate by reading into biblical interpretations that obviously had racist notions and some logistical challenges(how do you trace this back?). BY, though he said he personally found slavery despicable, believed that it was a sort of fate until the curse was lifted. Thus the notion of not attempting to lower or higher a person from this alleged lineage's "place."

These two curses are where you have seperate notions of servitude and mixing seeds and they have different implications. But somewhat similar implications in terms of Mormon culture and the larger culture of the time.

[Observer]

Providing some context:

Miscegenation

Therein it was made clear that any sexual contact between white women and black men was to be considered rape, punishable by death. The law regarding white men having sex with black women made it a misdemeanor to try to marry, but the "availability upon demand" of free black women to white men was considered an incident of their whiteness not punishable at all.

This is the background against which BY spoke. If a black man could be (and often was) killed both antebellum and during reconstruction for "mixing his seed" with the "chosen seed" (and often was, usually without a trial), BY argues, then it is entirely fitting and proper for the white man who "mixes his seed" with a black woman to suffer the same fate.

Think, mon! Sheesh.

Thank you for the insult, but I'm waiting for you to start doing some thinking yourself.

Race relations of the day and Miscegenation has NOTHING to do with a "Law of God" being explained by God's prophet. Had Brigham Young left out the "Law of God" bit, your argument might make sense (if we're trying to figure out what exactly made Brigham such a racist, that is).

However, he clearly explains that this view of "race mixing" is not his, but God's view of the matter.

Your "context" isn't context at all. If you're trying to put words in God's mouth, I think we might be better off just leaving that to the prophet (as he has done). Your argument is with God, or Brigham Young is a false prophet, attributing false "Law" and doctrine directly to God.

[Zakuska]

Your "context" isn't context at all. If you're trying to put words in God's mouth, I think we might be better off just leaving that to the prophet (as he has done). Your argument is with God, or Brigham Young is a false prophet, attributing false "Law" and doctrine directly to God.

And thus by extention Abraham a False prophet of God who would not have his son marry a Cannanite but had to have a cousin choosen for him by God.

[Observer]

The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black-hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Do you know this, Democrats? They have kindled the fire that is raging now from the north to the south, and from the south to the north. I am no abolitionist. Neither am I a proslavery man; I hate some of their principles and especially some of their conduct, as I do the gates of hell. The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.

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. 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.

"Their Conduct" of breaching Gods law of "race Mixing" speaks directly to the Jeffersons in the crowd.

I find BYs choice of words in presenting the idea very precise and cutting likje a double edged sword should.

All over the place? More like a precision cut of a surgions scalpol (sp).

Oh please. Brigham had yet to mention anything about "race mixing" or breaching God's law when he made the comments about "Their conduct".

Read it again, Zakuska. By your logic, Brigham could just have easily been referring to the "abolitionist" movement as to the "pro-slavery" crowd.

"The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists."

Brigham was being careful not to take 'too much' of one side or the other. Had nothing to do with "race mixing".

[USU78]

Thank you for the insult, but I'm waiting for you to start doing some thinking yourself.

??

Race relations of the day and Miscegenation has NOTHING to do with a "Law of God" being explained by God's prophet. Had Brigham Young left out the "Law of God" bit, your argument might make sense (if we're trying to figure out what exactly made Brigham such a racist, that is).

Why? Because of your say so? Miscegenation was a fact of life for over a hundred years. Note 1852 was the year Alabama adopted its miscegenation statute. I daresay it was probably copied from "Old South" states' enactments. It took the Warren Court to get rid of it. BY was no bumpkin, but was well acquainted with what was up in the South.

However, he clearly explains that this view of "race mixing" is not his, but God's view of the matter.

If you say so.

Your "context" isn't context at all. If you're trying to put words in God's mouth, I think we might be better off just leaving that to the prophet (as he has done). Your argument is with God, or Brigham Young is a false prophet, attributing false "Law" and doctrine directly to God.

So the true social and political contexts in which Divine Pronouncements . . . or prophetic "good advice" appear are irrelevant thereto?

A truly novel suggestion.

[Observer]

Your "context" isn't context at all. If you're trying to put words in God's mouth, I think we might be better off just leaving that to the prophet (as he has done). Your argument is with God, or Brigham Young is a false prophet, attributing false "Law" and doctrine directly to God.

And thus by extention Abraham a False prophet of God who would not have his son marry a Cannanite but had to have a cousin choosen for him by God.

Uhh. Ok. Brushing the fog off my screen now. You're not giving up on the "Brigham didn't really mean it that way" line of reasoning already, are you?

Moving so soon to other prophets "by extension"?

[Zakuska]

Yes he was being very careful and precise not to take sides.

"Their Conduct" within one Sentence of "Gods Law on Race Mixing". Speaks Volumns.

20/20 hind sight and All. Where Jeffersons escapades with his black house maids common Knowleged back then? Or where they tabloid news?

[Zakuska]

Observer... you are the one who is jumping all over the place. Abraham is the one who would not have Isaac marry a Cannanite. BY echoed the sentiment.

[Observer]

Yes he was being very careful and precise not to take sides.

"Their Conduct" within one Sentence of "Gods Law on Race Mixing". Speaks Volumns.

In english class I learnt that them thar paregraphs are used to separate different ideas or concepts. Maybe you know something by english teacher didn't. Sure does look like different themes in each paragraph to me.

Oh and I count 2 sentences separating the "Their conduct" and "Law of God" concepts, but that truly isn't necessary to count sentences, is it? The different paragraphs are obviously used because the ideas expressed are different.

20/20 hind sight and All. Where Jeffersons escapades with his black house maids common Knoiwleged back then?

And so "Jeffersons escapades" had a bearing on God's Law?? Brigham Young's racism, maybe...but the "Law of God"?

[Observer]

Observer... you are the one who is jumping all over the place. Abraham is the one who would not have Isaac marry a Cannanite. BY echoed the sentiment.

BY echoed the sentiment????? I think you mean GOD "echoed the sentiment". Remember, Brigham isn't making his own personal "fallible" suggestions and observations regarding those who "mix" with the "african race", but the Prophet is standing at the pulpit explaining the "LAW OF GOD" -- the way God sees it, not Brigham.

[koakaipo]

Observer-I understand your point regarding his utterance "the law of God." I do think how Mormons process this in terms of being binding scripture is perhaps different from how a non-Mormon would.

There is a sort of protocol in terms of how revelation is declared and how scripture is declared within Mormonism. Brigham Young, as confident as this man was, did allow limits for himself in terms of what should be considered scripture with regards to his utterances:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, Page 95)

Even he give his utterances some regulatory measures in terms of what members should be considered binding scripture and what shouldn't. The above quote shows a 2 part process in particular---he must first correct the sermon, and then this discourse goes to the people with "Thus saith the Lord."

So, while I understand your point about having trouble with his referencing it "as a law of God," how BY himself would characterize these utterances would not be considered binding scripture here. For the record, most of the JoD are uncorrected sermons from BY.

[Observer]

Observer... you are the one who is jumping all over the place. Abraham is the one who would not have Isaac marry a Cannanite. BY echoed the sentiment.

Hmmm. I seem to be discussing Brigham Young's explanation of a "Law of God" against chosen seed mixing with the "African race"...the penalty being "death on the spot."

It's a simple quote. Not complicated. Not requiring pages of "context", but a simply announcement by the prophet of a certain penalty for violating a certain "Law of God".

You, however, have pasted dozens of unrelated scriptures, references to canaan, Abraham, Isaac, Thomas Jefferson (?!?), etc.

But I'm sorry for being "all over the place".