Brigham Before The Ban

[Kenngo1969]

He didn't. William Smith did:

My bad, but do you think there's a chance in you-know-where it would've happened if Brother Brigham hadn't approved?

[Stone holm]

So where do we go from here? You are plainly either making things up or ignoring truth . . . unless there's a third option that won't come to mind just now. Just what are we to do with you, SH?

I confess, I lost track of Elder Lee at the stage where he had been bounced and expressed disagreement with Pres. Benson over the change in the Church programs, and wasn't tracking his later criminal convictions. Don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia or I would have discovered it. In my personal encounter with him, he was a very aloof and stoic person who did not engage in conversations -- course I am not sure I would have engaged in conversations had I been in a lunch completely surrounded by Navaho. I remember his talks at the Stake Conference sessions as being very "different", he referred in one talk to a physical confrontation with his elder sister who he described as a "big squaw" who was a devout member of the Native American Church and apparently tried to drag him off to peyote sessions. He also told us not to feel bad about what we did to the Native Americans because we were just fulfilling prophecy. He also talked about their diet on the reservation which consisted of prairie dogs for breakfast, prairie dogs for lunch and prairie dogs for supper. This was nearly thirty years ago, but I can remember him like it was yesterday abd those talks which is not something I can say of many GAs. I think he must have been laboring under major cultural hurdles and I am sure he probably felt the loss of Pres. Kimball who had a special relationship with the Navaho very keenly, so I don't judge him harshly which is appropriate because I don't know the facts.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stone holm

[Stone holm]

https://www.lds.org/...taylor?lang=eng

I had read about Charles Penrose, as I recall he was a much beloved Mission President in England and spent years walking England without purse or script proselyting and the Church kept refusing to release him so he could move to Zion because he was so integral to the Church there. He also wrote several hymns.

[Stone holm]

And Widstoe, Penrose, Lund, Talmage, Taylor, and others.

Wasn't Tanner Canadian?

[canard78]

My bad, but do you think there's a chance in you-know-where it would've happened if Brother Brigham hadn't approved?

It seems to gave happened in 1843 or early 1844, so BY's opinion probably mattered very little.

[Stone holm]

The source that Joseph's anti-slavery stance was also a repatriation policy.

Colonization and repatriation are not necessarily the same thing. Am looking for the source of my understanding, and am not satisfied with what I have read so far, although it appears that Joseph Smith differed from normal colonization advocates in that he did not call for sending them back to Africa or the Caribean, but may have preferred sending them to Texas. Both the North and the South were obsessed with the commingling of the races. One way of looking at the Northern abolitionist movements is to understand that they were not necessarily all that keen on the idea of the African race as being their equals, although some did, but in their general distaste for slave owning. It was the idea of owning another human that was considered sinful and which motivated many of the zealous Northern abolitionists rather than empathy for the Africans. Both the South and the North worried about what the former slaves might do and where they might go if freed. There was considerable concern in the South about the revenge that the former slaves might take if freed, Jefferson and Madison didn't believe that it was going to be possible to dismount the tiger of slavery without severe consequences. In the North there was concern about a massive migration northwards. I suspect that Brigham might have had some concern about the Great Basin being seen as a place where former slaves might migrate if they were too welcoming, after all the "Indian wars" were being fought with the use of "buffalo soldiers" after the Civil War.

[USU78]

Colonization and repatriation are not necessarily the same thing. Am looking for the source of my understanding, and am not satisfied with what I have read so far, although it appears that Joseph Smith differed from normal colonization advocates in that he did not call for sending them back to Africa or the Caribean, but may have preferred sending them to Texas. Both the North and the South were obsessed with the commingling of the races. One way of looking at the Northern abolitionist movements is to understand that they were not necessarily all that keen on the idea of the African race as being their equals, although some did, but in their general distaste for slave owning. It was the idea of owning another human that was considered sinful and which motivated many of the zealous Northern abolitionists rather than empathy for the Africans. Both the South and the North worried about what the former slaves might do and where they might go if freed. There was considerable concern in the South about the revenge that the former slaves might take if freed, Jefferson and Madison didn't believe that it was going to be possible to dismount the tiger of slavery without severe consequences. In the North there was concern about a massive migration northwards. I suspect that Brigham might have had some concern about the Great Basin being seen as a place where former slaves might migrate if they were too welcoming, after all the "Indian wars" were being fought with the use of "buffalo soldiers" after the Civil War.

The Haitian experience certainly proved Jefferson and Madison right, didn't it?

Not to mention the Zimbabwean.

[Stone holm]

The Haitian experience certainly proved Jefferson and Madison right, didn't it?

Not to mention the Zimbabwean.

Well and I also think that Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address was probably the most profound statement on the subject.