Brigham Young and extreme racism

[Zakuska]

What you are proposing... Is that two totally unrelated ideas where some how haphasardly thrown together by Pres. Young?!

I was taught in High School English that a good writer leads his reader to a conclusion. Each paragraph and Idea building one upon another. "Their Conduct" speaks to both Groups.

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

Then he Ties the Idea of obeying Gods Laws:

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.

Then he adresses the "Conduct of the Abolitionists":

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.

He's pitting the abuses against the Mormons and Polygamy vs The South and their Pro-Slavery/abuses and crying foul.

Without understanding what "Gods Law" was in the context in which BY referses your take on his quote is meaningless.

[Observer]

So Koakaipo, is my interpretation correct in that Mormon Prophets aren't always speaking as Prophets, even when they declare they are speaking as Prophet?

If so, that is very confusing and disturbing.

Anyhow, I assume you disagree that Brigham accurately described a "Law of God." Is that correct? The Prophet was mistaken regarding this particular law?

[Zakuska]

Disturbing?

Why should it be?

Prophets have been wrong since the dawn of time. 2 Sam 7

However... this is not the case with BY in this instance.

[Abulafia]

I have just been reading this article, and found it to be quite interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_Mormonism

I find this whole subject to be quite depressing and could never see God in any of it, even from within the bible.

Part of my university studies involved researching the evolving of modern man on the earth. I understand that currently fossil evidence on modern humans suggest that they ALL came out of Africa, and all originally would have had a dark skin in keeping with evolving in a warm and sunny climate. Doesn't DNA evidence support this?

I just think that the scientific evidence for race is a lot kinder and makes a heck of a lot more sense than all this stuff .

If the curse of cain came through the line of Ham, and then on through Canaan, then who were the Canaanites anyway, is there any evidence that they were negro?

I can't find any evidence to suggest they were, infact the evidence suggests that they were a group which bore many similarities (and many differences) with Judaism, ethnically and culturally.

I'm sorry I just can't get the facts to fit the religion in this instance. It just doesn't make sense.

[awyatt]

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.

So, let's see... You provide two paragraphs in your response. According to your English class "them thar paregraphs are used to separate different ideas or concepts."

So, by the same measure you try to mince BY's words into separate parts, we can mince your words and say that the two paragraphs of your response are not related to each other.

I think you needed to listen better in your English class.

-Allen

[Observer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Zakuska]

I agree...

I was taught in High School English that a good writer leads his reader to a conclusion. Each paragraph and Idea building one upon another. Line upon Line Precept upon Precept.

[koakaipo]

So Koakaipo, is my interpretation correct in that Mormon Prophets aren't always speaking as Prophets, even when they declare they are speaking as Prophet?

If so, that is very confusing and disturbing.

Anyhow, I assume you disagree that Brigham accurately described a "Law of God." Is that correct? The Prophet was mistaken regarding this particular law?

I could be disturbed, I have my moments let me tell you with three young boys. This is the only time I get to speak in whole sentences and without mentioning the Wiggles for the most part.

No, seriously, here's my take, and I think it's pretty grounded in Mormon scripture so it's not just some off the cuff deal.

Theologically, a person must be filled with the Spirit to receive revelation. At the same time theologically, a person cannot be filled with the Spirit all the time. We are talking about moments of inspiration, that still need to be regulated and given thought before something gets the big go ahead, not like a whole life of complete inspiration...when it comes to prophets. Mormon scripture emphasizes this fallibility.

I don't think him referencing it "a law of God" means he necessarily believed he was just inspired to characterize his views this way. He could be looking at biblical precedence to conclude this was a law of God. I think this is a good hunch personally, because he is quoted numerous times saying he did not like the concept of slavery, but that since the Bible mandated it, this is how it is to be until the alleged curse is lifted.

It goes back to the notion that it could be a "law of God" not because God just told him it was a law----it could be a law of God in terms of how BY has interpreted the Bible in that time and place, and thus the inspiration doesn't rest on him but on biblical precedence.

Secondly, I did explain how BY himself explained how he was speaking as a prophet-that it was a two part process in terms of his sermons themselves. There is a regulatory measure there, and so if we go by what he declares as a prophet, then we have to go with the two part protocol he himself set up.

If you would like some scriptural support for the notion of fallibility of prophets within Mormon theology, that may help out too for some perspective of why there may be a divide here between members and non-Mormons.

[koakaipo]

I have just been reading this article, and found it to be quite interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_Mormonism

I find this whole subject to be quite depressing and could never see God in any of it, even from within the bible. 

Part of my university studies involved researching the evolving of modern man on the earth.  I understand that currently fossil evidence on modern humans suggest that they ALL came out of Africa, and all originally would have had a dark skin in keeping with evolving in a warm and sunny climate.  Doesn't DNA evidence support this?

I just think that the scientific evidence for race is a lot kinder and makes a heck of a lot more sense than all this stuff .

If the curse of cain came through the line of Ham, and then on through Canaan, then who were the Canaanites anyway, is there any evidence that they were negro?

I can't find any evidence to suggest they were, infact the evidence suggests that they were a group which bore many similarities (and many differences) with Judaism, ethnically and culturally.

I'm sorry I just can't get the facts to fit the religion in this instance. It just doesn't make sense.

Abu-there's a great paper on FAIR by Armand L. Mauss that talks about how logistical a challenge it is to try to do such tracing....I by the way don't subscribe to these curses, it just struck me that it may have sound like I was championing them or something...

[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.

So, let's see... You provide two paragraphs in your response. According to your English class "them thar paregraphs are used to separate different ideas or concepts."

So, by the same measure you try to mince BY's words into separate parts, we can mince your words and say that the two paragraphs of your response are not related to each other.

I think you needed to listen better in your English class.

-Allen

You'll have to forgive me, Allen. I'm still in my prepatory prophet classes. I make no excuses for my lazy grammar. But poor Brigham, give the guy some credit eh? No future 'sermon decryption' or 'complicated concept translation services' are required for the guy. I'm trying to take the Prophet at his word. It seems that isn't the objective for you, but rather to change his word to better fit more modern times. Sheesh.

[koakaipo]

Abu-here's the link for the paper:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html

[Abulafia]

Thanks Koakaipo, I'll check it out.

[Zakuska]

I'm trying to take the Prophet at his word. It seems that isn't the objective for you, but rather to change his word to better fit more modern times. Sheesh.

Who is changing to fit Modern Times?

Have I not quoted Abraham and his Aversion to race mixing? How is that Modern?

Sheesh!

[Abulafia]

Koakaipo. Brilliant article. Very hard-hitting. I liked it a lot. Thanks. It also seems the most reasonable response, and one that I can pretty much agree with.

Great stuff.

[Moksha]

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

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

Better watch yo step Jefferson!

None of this!!!

[Observer]

So Koakaipo, is my interpretation correct in that Mormon Prophets aren't always speaking as Prophets, even when they declare they are speaking as Prophet?

If so, that is very confusing and disturbing.

Anyhow, I assume you disagree that Brigham accurately described a "Law of God." Is that correct? The Prophet was mistaken regarding this particular law?

I could be disturbed, I have my moments let me tell you with three young boys. This is the only time I get to speak in whole sentences and without mentioning the Wiggles for the most part.

No, seriously, here's my take, and I think it's pretty grounded in Mormon scripture so it's not just some off the cuff deal.

Theologically, a person must be filled with the Spirit to receive revelation. At the same time theologically, a person cannot be filled with the Spirit all the time. We are talking about moments of inspiration, that still need to be regulated and given thought before something gets the big go ahead, not like a whole life of complete inspiration...when it comes to prophets. Mormon scripture emphasizes this fallibility.

I don't think him referencing it "a law of God" means he necessarily believed he was just inspired to characterize his views this way. He could be looking at biblical precedence to conclude this was a law of God. I think this is a good hunch personally, because he is quoted numerous times saying he did not like the concept of slavery, but that since the Bible mandated it, this is how it is to be until the alleged curse is lifted.

It goes back to the notion that it could be a "law of God" not because God just told him it was a law----it could be a law of God in terms of how BY has interpreted the Bible in that time and place, and thus the inspiration doesn't rest on him but on biblical precedence.

Secondly, I did explain how BY himself explained how he was speaking as a prophet-that it was a two part process in terms of his sermons themselves. There is a regulatory measure there, and so if we go by what he declares as a prophet, then we have to go with the two part protocol he himself set up.

If you would like some scriptural support for the notion of fallibility of prophets within Mormon theology, that may help out too for some perspective of why there may be a divide here between members and non-Mormons.

3 boys! Koakaipo, my hat's off to you. I have children myself, and oh how I despise those Wiggles (the kids love 'em, lol)

Anyway, I appreciate your providing me with things to think about. I actually am a former Mormon, not simply a non-mormon. So, I'm familiar with this issue from a believing member's point of view also.

Regarding your comments, you still seem to be saying that a prophet is sometimes speaking as a prophet and sometimes isn't (even at those times he declares a "Law of God"). Wouldn't that make prophets irrelevent? Even when the Prophet says "listen here, this is a LAW of God", we are to second guess, raise eyebrows and search for additional context to interpret what the prophet may have actually meant? Is that also acceptable today, with Prophet Hinckley?

I'm still unclear as to your view of this "death on the spot" quote. I understand your argument that it may not necessarilly be the words from God's literal mouth (more a Biblical interpretation)...while I disagree with your position (I think Brigham worded it exactly as intended), I find it much more plausible than the "protecting slave women from white rapists" fog cloud.

Hmm. I'll have to think about your comments some more. At this point, I really do think Brigham spoke clearly and plainly. It's my view that Brigham intended the words exactly as they were, and wouldn't apologize to any modern apologists, regardless if they're uncomfortable with a declared "Law of God".

[Moksha]

Disturbing?

Why should it be?

Prophets have been wrong since the dawn of time. 2 Sam 7

However... this is not the case with BY in this instance.

Since God is not a racist, how wrong is completely, utterly, totally wrong? Any past racism of the Church should be buried in a lead lined casket and not resurrected.

[Observer]

I'm trying to take the Prophet at his word. It seems that isn't the objective for you, but rather to change his word to better fit more modern times. Sheesh.

Who is changing to fit Modern Times?

Have I not quoted Abraham and his Aversion to race mixing? How is that Modern?

Sheesh!

Uhhhhhh, it isn't. Similarly, Brigham's statements do not fit well in modern times - and so it is always argued as false or simply not what he meant to say.

Good catch though. Racism is less accepted today than in Brigham and Abraham's day (hence the need to change or portray it differently from what it actually is.) And that was my point. You reiterated nicely.

[Mor-Atheist]

koakaipo

Abu-here's the link for the paper:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html

I agree, good article, I could see myself having dialogue with this guy. I would have asked tougher questions, but hey, what can you do

The only thing I did not like is he seemed to really downplay some of the doctrine, quotes, etc. I don't think dismissing some of those things can be done so easily, and his whole premise was built off of that.

Definitely a step in the right direction though.

[Deborah]

we know the real reasons why the blacks were denied the priesthood, It may have been because the whites were not ready to accept them yet. 

FALSE. The reason blacks were denied the priesthood at that time had nothing to do with racism or prejudice; it had to do with their lineage, which reaches back to the Pre-existent life. The reason the ban on blacks and the priesthood was lifted had to do with many factors, among which was President Kimball's imploring the Lord to open the doors for them after all these generations as at that time there were many blacks joining the church (yes, even in spite of the ban on the priesthood). This was a lineage which for a time was cursed and which then recieved all the blessings. The lineage of Israel is also especially blessed and is considered the chosen people of God. However, through "adoption" anyone of any lineage can become part of Israel.

This really is a doctrine which can't be understood unless there is an understanding of the whole plan of Salvation. BY's "inflammatory" comments were exact in that those at that time who did intermarry would lose the blessings of the Priesthood for their posterity as the Law of God stood at that time. That in essence is a form of death.

The doctrine was a law of God, not of man. Those who condemn the church for this are condemning God. You don't have to accept this but that is the way it is. But since you think we are all crazy anyway why in the heck should it matter to you what we believe.

[Pahoran]

Observer,

you wrote:

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.)

Ah. Smearing by association. I was wondering how long it would take you to get around to that dirty tactic; all the cheapest demagogues use it, so it is natural that you should.

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.)

I thought we were discussing Brigham's statement and what it might (or might not) have meant.

If you are genuinely interested in the truth of these matters, you will naturally want to investigate any relevant and pertinent information that might shed light upon the subject.

But if all you really want to do is disseminate vile, plainly spoken anti-Mormon filth (to coin a phrase) then you will do everything you can to avoid engaging such questions, and instead use every dirty polemical trick at your disposal to steer the discussion away from them.

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?

Exactly. Mere mud-slinging.

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".

Like I said: we--or at least those of us who actually care about the truth--are looking at what that statement might actually mean.

It's not that complicated really.

It might, however, be somewhat more nuanced than you are willing to let others believe.

Not that you care, but those who actually are interested in the truth understand that a single isolated statement is not exhaustive evidence of a person's true view on a subject.

Not that you care, but those who actually are interested in the truth understand that other factors might be relevant in determining that view.

Not that you care, but those who actually are interested in the truth understand that the fact that a person frequently uses hyperbole in his public utterances might be a relevant consideration.

Not that you care, but those who actually are interested in the truth understand that what a person does when he has the opportunity to put his views into practice is at least as relevant as what he says. "Actions speak louder than words," you know.

Not that you care.

So go right ahead and blithely ignore Brigham's tendency to hyperbole. Do your worst to discount what he actually enacted into law. Draw on every dirty polemical trick you know--and you know plenty--to try to marginalise those who have the temerity to try to confuse the issue with facts.

But just remember that, to those who see through your tricks, you are simply demonstrating that you know that the facts don't support your position.

Juliann 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?

And you deftly sidestepped the question with:

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.

Except that the only reason Brigham's statement is such a hot button issue for anti-Mormons like yourself is that you think the words mean something. You are the one making the accusations; mostly by insinuation, so Juliann has every right to ask you to spell out what you think his statement means. Just what are you accusing him of?

But then you showed how fragile is your argument with:

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.

Anyone including Brigham?

You then let the cat out of the bag with:

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.

And thus we see your anti-Mormon agenda unmasked at last. It isn't enough for you to demonstrate that Brigham had the same sort of opinions as most of his contemporaries (if more enlightened than most.) No, you have to somehow leverage this smear campaign into an attack on the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. Once you've got everyone worked up into a lather over Brigham's "racism", you then try to make an argument similar to "a true prophet would never believe that God holds a view inimical to 21st-century western values."

An argument which is absurd on its face.

But that's the point of all the emotive hype about "racism." You hope that if you can get people worked up enough, they'll swallow the absurdity, don't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Observer]

The doctrine was a law of God, not of man. Those who condemn the church for this are condemning God. You don't have to accept this but that is the way it is. But since you think we are all crazy anyway why in the heck should it matter to you what we believe.

Deborah, it appears the "we" in this thread believe many different things regarding race and the "Law of God." Some have stated Brigham's quote has been misunderstood, others call it a "goose egg", still others explain it as a protection of slave women from white rapists (uggh) and now with your post we've come full circle. Pheeew. So God actually IS a racist, and everybody deal with it. Ok. Got it.

Your view seems to be that the quote accurately represents God's will, so don't criticize or condemn or you're condemning God??

In so few words, you are the one insinuating that God is a petty racist here. I'm not sure he'd be pleased with your comments, nor Brigham's.

[awyatt]

Deborah said: The reason blacks were denied the priesthood at that time had nothing to do with racism or prejudice; it had to do with their lineage, which reaches back to the Pre-existent life.

Could you please clarify what you mean by this, Deborah? (I hope you aren't resurrecting the old myth that blacks were denied the priesthood because they were somehow "less valiant" in the pre-existence.)

-Allen

[Observer]

Pahoran, it is usually always Mormon rationalizers who bring the "prophets aren't infallible" argument into discussions like this thread. Go back and review the thread in it's entirety. My comments in response to "prophets aren't infallible" and "racism patterns of the day" arguments are entirely appropriate.

I simply wish to give my point of view, that's all. "Errors" in my logic are constantly pointed out to me, I'm simply attempting to inject my two cents where I see posters are not remaining consistant in their arguments, that's all.

The prophet included the words "Shall I tell you the Law of God..." in his remarks from the pulpit to the Lord's church in the tabernacle. Like Deborah, Brigham isn't weaseling on anything. He's speaking clearly and simply stating a "Law of God". Frankly, the paragraph is clear. Perhaps I'm not just being obtuse by reading it as written. Perhaps the difficulty is yours in inserting concepts and explanations that simply aren't there.

And so my comments regarding "false prophet" are mostly rhetorical...I'm just connecting the dots for you. Prophets who declare God's laws in "error" or simply due to personal bigotry are of course, false Prophets. Otherwise, I see NO scenario where there could be such a thing as a "false" prophet.

I have yet to read any posters explain how a Prophet is still a true Prophet, while proclaiming "Laws" of God, and speaking FOR GOD (and saying so) that (according to many posters here) aren't actually Laws of God at all, but simply Brigham's personal falibility.

In my view, I'm simply pointing out to many of you that you are unwittingly marking Brigham Young as a false prophet by your oblivious attitude towards the PROPHET explainging the "LAW OF GOD" (NOT his personal opinions on treatment of slaves). If this sermon is just an example of Brigham's "fallibility", it appears you are rendering God as the fallible one. Brigham's just passing his word along.

[Zakuska]

Observer so then tell me was it Gods will that David biuld the temple or was that merely wishfull thinking on Nathans part?

2 Sam 7

Since Nathan spoke Gods will without consulting the Lord does that make him a "false Prophet"?