Article re: Child Slavery in Early Utah

[smac97]

This is a very interesting article: 

Quote

Mormons Tried to Stop Native Child Slavery in Utah. They Ended Up Encouraging It
Children were purchased in an attempt to save them from being degraded, but soon became a vital source of labor for early Mormon settlers.
ERIN BLAKEMORE

When Brigham Young and his band of Mormon settlers marched into Utah in 1847, they saw a vast expanse of land they envisioned as a sanctuary. Salt Lake City would soon become the bustling center of life in the Latter-Day Saints Church. But that life would rest in part on the backs of people who were not Mormon—and who weren’t even voluntarily in Salt Lake.

They were Native and black slaves, and their story is an often forgotten part of the Mormon settlement of Utah.

..

Some groups of Native people, including the Utes, participated in the slave trade, raiding nearby tribes, capturing potential slaves and selling them to the Mexican elite.

This is interesting.  It seems like slavery is, in the public consciousness, the sin of white folks.  And yet 19th-century slavery in the American West heavily involved Native Americans capturing other Native Americans and selling them to Mexicans.

So where do the members of the Church fit in?  Wel...

Quote

Many Mormons believed slavery was immoral and opposed any kind of enslavement. But once they reached Utah’s Salt Lake Valley, they were initiated into the slave trade by a bloody incident that launched them, even if unintentionally, into the role of slave owners.

“Early one morning we were excited at hearing their shrill, blood-curdling war whoop,” wrote John R. Young, who was camped with the Mormons in what would become Salt Lake. The Native people they encountered had just returned from a raid in which they had captured two girls. “One of these they had killed, and were torturing the other,” wrote Young. One of the Mormon settlers intervened, buying the captive girl.

Soon, Mormons were buying slaves regularly in an attempt to save them from their enslavement and to convert them to Mormonism. “It is essentially purchasing them into freedom,” Brigham Young, the pioneers’ leader, wrote. He encouraged other Mormons to “buy up the Lamanite children as fast as they could and to educate them and teach them the gospel.”

Today, presentism and notions about "cultural imperialism" will compel some to vilify the literal purchasing of Native American child slaves from their masters (who were also Native American) with the intention of "civilizing" (converting) the children, both religiously and, I suspect, culturally.

I have a hard time condemning this.  It seems that these folks were doing what they thought was best under the circumstances.  And frankly, they probably were.  Nevertheless, there were unintended consequences:

Quote

This amounted to a green light for participating in the slave trade. In 1852, the Utah territorial legislature passed a law that allowed the trade, justifying it as a kind gesture toward children who would otherwise be degraded. As a result, Mormons were soon trading horses, food, and other items for Native children. Though they did not tolerate the Mexican trade in slaves, they were willing to participate in the slave trade with Native Americans.

Often, Mormons did so because they felt they had no choice. For example, in 1851 Mormons stopped Don Pedro Leon Lujan, a Mexican slave trader, from conducting slave trades with the local Ute people. Walkara’s brother, Arrapine, was furious at what he saw as the Mormons’ interference in his people’s trade. In retaliation, he tried to force the Mormons to purchase the children they had prevented him from selling. When they refused, he murdered a child in front of them.

“Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground,” Daniel W. Jones, a Mormon settler, recalled. He then threw the body toward the Mormons and told them that if they’d had a heart, they would have purchased the child instead.

Yeesh.  How awful.  Evil.  

Again, the popular narrative in our culture about slavery in America is that it is the sin of white folks.  But the sin was a lot more widespread than that.

Another unintended consequence:

Quote

Other times, the Mormons would purchase children they felt were on the verge of death. Whatever their intentions, though, their purchase of indigenous children disrupted Native American tribes whose livelihoods, food sources and lifestyles had been sundered by the arrival of the Mormons. As more and more children were enslaved, local Native populations began to die out.

As historian Brian Q. Cannon notes, Mormons purchased children as slaves for a variety of reasons: because they wanted children, because they felt they needed to be civilized, because they wanted to convert them. Child slaves soon became a vital source of labor for the settlers, some of whom traded them to other Mormons or even gave them as gifts. Ute Indians, many of whom were starving, sold their children to Mormon people in order to ensure their survival.

Meanwhile, writes Cannon, the Mormons attempted to Anglicize the children, and “imposed a new order and identity” on them. Within a decade of settlement, at least 400 Native American children lived in Mormon households. At least one of them, Sally Pidash Young, was indentured by Brigham Young himself.

The settlement of the American West was a very difficult thing.  These sorts of conflicts and moral quandaries were, I think, inevitable.  I think there were a lot of good intentions in play, but the reality of it all was messy and, in retrospect, disconcerting.  That's easy to say in 2018, as I sit in a nice warm building and type away on a laptop, as opposed to those trying to eke out an existence in 19th-century Utah Territory.

The entire article is worth a read.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is a very interesting article: 

This is interesting.  It seems like slavery is, in the public consciousness, the sin of white folks.  And yet 19th-century slavery in the American West heavily involved Native Americans capturing other Native Americans and selling them to Mexicans.

So where do the members of the Church fit in?  Wel...

Today, presentism and notions about "cultural imperialism" will compel some to vilify the literal purchasing of Native American child slaves from their masters (who were also Native American) with the intention of "civilizing" (converting) the children, both religiously and, I suspect, culturally.

I have a hard time condemning this.  It seems that these folks were doing what they thought was best under the circumstances.  And frankly, they probably were.  Nevertheless, there were unintended consequences:

Yeesh.  How awful.  Evil.  

Again, the popular narrative in our culture about slavery in America is that it is the sin of white folks.  But the sin was a lot more widespread than that.

Another unintended consequence:

The settlement of the American West was a very difficult thing.  These sorts of conflicts and moral quandaries were, I think, inevitable.  I think there were a lot of good intentions in play, but the reality of it all was messy and, in retrospect, disconcerting.  That's easy to say in 2018, as I sit in a nice warm building and type away on a laptop, as opposed to those trying to eke out an existence in 19th-century Utah Territory.

The entire article is worth a read.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

In general (not speaking to this specific experience), white Europeans (Americans, English, etc.) were the only people to see slavery as a race issue.  In that sense, the slavery practiced in England and America is uniquely  'a sin of white folks.'  

Whites saw slavery as o.k. because we believed the races enslaved were inferior to us.  A lot of the time we believed that God specifically gave us slaves because we were so much better than them.  Yes, almost every race in history has experience with slavery, but, like the Native Americans, it wasn't based on race or the color of someone's skin.  Most often these were political enemies or people who owed a debt they could not pay.  Skin color and race had nothing to do with it.  And in almost all of those other cultures, slaves were often freed after a set time, or could earn their freedom and be an equal in society once again.  Not so in our culture, where slavery was a lifetime thing.

As for the experiences of mormons with native American slaves, I'm not going to judge them. But I will say that even though I agree there were a lot of good intentions, they should have known that using them as a source of free labor was not o.k.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Today, presentism and notions about "cultural imperialism" will compel some to vilify the literal purchasing of Native American child slaves from their masters (who were also Native American) with the intention of "civilizing" (converting) the children, both religiously and, I suspect, culturall

Depending on the physical conditions, were they treated well, fed enough, were safe from rape....answers might vary.  I think you would find the vast majority supporting removing them from slavery that so easily ended in death as in the case repeated as long as the situation they were placed in was better.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I will say that even though I agree there were a lot of good intentions, they should have known that using them as a source of free labor was not o.k.

This is an interesting statement.  Why should they have known that it wasn't ok?  I'm not disagreeing with you, just interested in knowing why you feel that they should have known this.

I think today, as part of our western culture, see slavery as inherently wrong.  We see it as something that everyone should just know.  However, it would seem that slavery has existed from the dawn of recorded history.  It would seem that in that light most people have not seen it as something that is inherently wrong.  When did this change and would a member of the church in the mid 19th century see this as something that was inherently wrong or part of life?  From the evidence in the OP it would seem that they were somewhere in between.  They disagreed with the practice of slavery, but many seemed to see nothing wrong with using those whom they have saved from slavery as a source of labor.  That would seem to be a contradiction to us today, but was it to them? 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Whatever I think about the history of slavery in it's various forms, I figure my time is best spent on the thing in it's current forms.   Slavery/human trafficking is quite alive and well here in the US, thank you very much.  If this is news to anyone, please consider spending some effort to educate yourselves. 

Here's a good place to start, if you need somewhere to start: https://www.5280.com/2014/04/girls-next-door/

[Prof]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is an interesting statement.  Why should they have known that it wasn't ok?  I'm not disagreeing with you, just interested in knowing why you feel that they should have known this.

I think today, as part of our western culture, see slavery as inherently wrong.  We see it as something that everyone should just know.  However, it would seem that slavery has existed from the dawn of recorded history.  It would seem that in that light most people have not seen it as something that is inherently wrong.  When did this change and would a member of the church in the mid 19th century see this as something that was inherently wrong or part of life?  From the evidence in the OP it would seem that they were somewhere in between.  They disagreed with the practice of slavery, but many seemed to see nothing wrong with using those whom they have saved from slavery as a source of labor.  That would seem to be a contradiction to us today, but was it to them? 

KS,

I definitely agree with your point! Too often, I see people living today who are ready to judge people from the past using today's cultural standards.

Last year, I attended a conference in which the speakers spent an hour condemning our (United States) founding fathers. One of my students agreed and I pulled him aside and suggested that we not judge people from the past using today's cultural standards. I wonder how people will judge me 200 years from now? I wonder what the standards will be like? But since I don't know, I will be the best person I can be here and now with the rules that I know!

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Quote

I will say that even though I agree there were a lot of good intentions, they should have known that using them as a source of free labor was not o.k.

This is an interesting statement.  Why should they have known that it wasn't ok?  I'm not disagreeing with you, just interested in knowing why you feel that they should have known this.

I think that the slavery was among the greatest moral sins of our ancestors.  Today, one of our greatest moral sins is elective abortion.  I think we "should" know that killing babies because they have Down Syndrome, or because they are unanticipated/unplanned/unwanted, or because they are inconvenient, and so on . . . is not okay.

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think today, as part of our western culture, see slavery as inherently wrong.  We see it as something that everyone should just know.  However, it would seem that slavery has existed from the dawn of recorded history.  It would seem that in that light most people have not seen it as something that is inherently wrong.  When did this change and would a member of the church in the mid 19th century see this as something that was inherently wrong or part of life?  From the evidence in the OP it would seem that they were somewhere in between.  They disagreed with the practice of slavery, but many seemed to see nothing wrong with using those whom they have saved from slavery as a source of labor. 

It was an agrarian society.  Children born into the family were also "a source of labor," and were put to work.

Were Native American children treated like adopted children?  Or like "slaves?"  Or perhaps there was a diversity of such things depending on the individuals involved?

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That would seem to be a contradiction to us today, but was it to them? 

Presentism is a toughie.  It can be difficult for us to differentiate conduct that is malum in se (bad in and of itself) or malum prohibitum (bad because society/law has decreed it to be bad).

Thanks,

-Smac

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

“buy up the Lamanite children as fast as they could and to educate them and teach them the gospel.”

When Brigham said "buy up the Lamanite children" he's not calling for some horrific thing to acquire a labor force for building temples, I think he's speaking of liberation and rescue.  The Daniel Jones quote is demonic - why didn't the men immediately attack and take the lives of these murderers?  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

This is an interesting statement.  Why should they have known that it wasn't ok?  I'm not disagreeing with you, just interested in knowing why you feel that they should have known this.

They disagreed with the practice of slavery, but many seemed to see nothing wrong with using those whom they have saved from slavery as a source of labor.  That would seem to be a contradiction to us today, but was it to them? 

Because it seems like should know that slavery is wrong?  And buying someone and then using them as free labor is the definition of slavery, no matter how good your intentions were or what you were saving them from.

It should be a contradiction to all thinking adults because there is really no excuse for not knowing that you can't save someone from slavery if they are still a slave after you are done with them.  

Edited November 15, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Quote

“buy up the Lamanite children as fast as they could and to educate them and teach them the gospel.”

When Brigham said "buy up the Lamanite children" he's not calling for some horrific thing to acquire a labor force for building temples, I think he's speaking of liberation and rescue.  The Daniel Jones quote is demonic - why didn't the men immediately attack and take the lives of these murderers?  

There were all sorts of difficulties between the American (white) settlers and the Native Americans.  The "Walker War," involving Walkara, the Shoshone chief whose brother, Arrapine (second only to Walkara as a war chief), murdered the child in front of Jones, is illustrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because it seems like should know that slavery is wrong?  And buying someone and then using them as free labor is the definition of slavery, no matter how good your intentions were or what you were saving them from.

It should be a contradiction to all thinking adults because there is really no excuse for not knowing that you can't save someone from slavery if they are still a slave after you are done with them.  

So if they "should" know that it was wrong, then why did they do it?  Did they just ignore what they knew to be wrong or right and do it anyway?  Or is the idea that slavery is morally wrong more of a social construct, which, at least for western culture,  was slowly changing in the 19th century.

[bluebell]

Just now, ksfisher said:

So if they "should" know that it was wrong, then why did they do it?  Did they just ignore what they knew to be wrong or right and do it anyway?  Or is the idea that slavery is morally wrong more of a social construct, which, at least for western culture,  was slowly changing in the 19th century.

They probably did it because they justified it to themselves somehow.  Isn't that why you and I do wrong things even though we know they are wrong?  If people weren't so good at doing wrong things even when they know they are wrong, we wouldn't need a Savior.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Prof said:

KS,

I definitely agree with your point! Too often, I see people living today who are ready to judge people from the past using today's cultural standards.

Last year, I attended a conference in which the speakers spent an hour condemning our (United States) founding fathers. One of my students agreed and I pulled him aside and suggested that we not judge people from the past using today's cultural standards. I wonder how people will judge me 200 years from now? I wonder what the standards will be like? But since I don't know, I will be the best person I can be here and now with the rules that I know!

I think Mormon provided some helpful guidance for how we can avoid the pitfalls of presentism while also not disregarding the lessons to be learned form history.  See Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

This is very wise.  We needn't condemn the flawed men and women who have gone before.  They're already dead, and judgment is now up to God (as it has ever been).

But we also needn't ignore the flaws of our predecessors.  We can, and must, learn from them, that we may "be more wise they [they] have been."

I think this applies to the leaders of the Church.  And our fellow members.  And to the Church as a whole.  We are all imperfect beings.  And yet Christ loves His Church.  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Ephesians 5:25).  If Jesus Christ loves His Church, I think we should, too.

For me, "the Church" encompasses both the institution and its constituent members.   We need to forgive.  "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10).  And we need to remember that we will be judged by our own yardstick.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think we "should" know that killing babies because they have Down Syndrome, or because they are unanticipated/unplanned/unwanted, or because they are inconvenient, and so on . . . is not okay.

I think we "should know" this, but I don't think it's as apparent as we may think.  In a subsistence level society non productive individuals could be seen as a unbearable burden on the group.  In order for the group to survive it may be seen as necessary to eliminate (that sounds like too harsh a word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) individuals who cannot support themselves.

Of course we see this as wrong today, but our society can afford to support non productive individuals.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Were Native American children treated like adopted children?  Or like "slaves?"  Or perhaps there was a diversity of such things depending on the individuals involved?

This would be good to understand.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a very interesting article: 

This is interesting.  It seems like slavery is, in the public consciousness, the sin of white folks.  And yet 19th-century slavery in the American West heavily involved Native Americans capturing other Native Americans and selling them to Mexicans.

So where do the members of the Church fit in?  Wel...

Today, presentism and notions about "cultural imperialism" will compel some to vilify the literal purchasing of Native American child slaves from their masters (who were also Native American) with the intention of "civilizing" (converting) the children, both religiously and, I suspect, culturally.

I have a hard time condemning this.  It seems that these folks were doing what they thought was best under the circumstances.  And frankly, they probably were.  Nevertheless, there were unintended consequences:

Yeesh.  How awful.  Evil.  

Again, the popular narrative in our culture about slavery in America is that it is the sin of white folks.  But the sin was a lot more widespread than that.

Another unintended consequence:

The settlement of the American West was a very difficult thing.  These sorts of conflicts and moral quandaries were, I think, inevitable.  I think there were a lot of good intentions in play, but the reality of it all was messy and, in retrospect, disconcerting.  That's easy to say in 2018, as I sit in a nice warm building and type away on a laptop, as opposed to those trying to eke out an existence in 19th-century Utah Territory.

The entire article is worth a read.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

BY believed in slavery...

Edited November 15, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They probably did it because they justified it to themselves somehow.  Isn't that why you and I do wrong things even though we know they are wrong?

Did they know it was wrong?  Today we would look at burning someone at the stake as completely wrong, regardless of what crimes they had committed.  Yet this was seen as an acceptable form of capital punishment for certain crimes in the past.  I know, today, that this is wrong.  Yet someone 500 years ago didn't.

The same could be said with public hangings.  It is wrong today to execute someone by hanging in public.  Yet 100 years ago these events were conducted in public.  What changed?  Why would something that "I know" is wrong today not be known by someone in the past?

I would have the same questions about slavery.  I know it is wrong.  But apparently people in the past were not born knowing this.  What changed?  I think it was more than just people justifying themselves.

[Prof]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think that the slavery was among the greatest moral sins of our ancestors.  

I would agree. However, it got me thinking. Was slavery ever condemned in ancient scripture? Not that I am aware of, but I am open to correction.

Perhaps if it had been condemned more loudly in the Bible, we would not have had the struggles we had with it in the early formation of the country and in the settling of the west.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Prof said:

I would agree. However, it got me thinking. Was slavery ever condemned in ancient scripture? Not that I am aware of, but I am open to correction.

I assume you mean ancient scripture that survived the centuries and was transmitted through the ages to us.  If that's the case, then I think you are correct.  In fact, the Bible regulated, but di not outright condemn, the practice of slavery.

1 minute ago, Prof said:

Perhaps if it had been condemned more loudly in the Bible, we would not have had the struggles we had with it in the early formation of the country and in the settling of the west.

You are probably right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Did they know it was wrong?  Today we would look at burning someone at the stake as completely wrong, regardless of what crimes they had committed.  Yet this was seen as an acceptable form of capital punishment for certain crimes in the past.  I know, today, that this is wrong.  Yet someone 500 years ago didn't.

The same could be said with public hangings.  It is wrong today to execute someone by hanging in public.  Yet 100 years ago these events were conducted in public.  What changed?  Why would something that "I know" is wrong today not be known by someone in the past?

I would have the same questions about slavery.  I know it is wrong.  But apparently people in the past were not born knowing this.  What changed?  I think it was more than just people justifying themselves.

Today, we believe that capital punishment for certain crimes is acceptable. They believed that same thing 500 years ago, and 100 years ago.  I don't think that's a great example of what you are trying to say.  

Members of the church should know that slavery is wrong because they claim to have access to a gift that tells them when something is right and something is wrong.  Brigham Young probably should have known that it was wrong to teach that the Civil War would not succeed in freeing blacks and that abolitionists were working against the kingdom of God and would never succeed, but his personal beliefs got in the way.  

I don't judge him or anyone else for that.  But I still believe that they, given their access to truth via the Holy Ghost, should have known better and will (or have) need to repent of it.

Edited November 15, 2018 by bluebell

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Prof said:

Perhaps if it had been condemned more loudly in the Bible, we would not have had the struggles we had with it in the early formation of the country and in the settling of the west.

I think the same thing could be said for the treatment of women.  If the bible had been more outspoken on the equality of men and women, perhaps so many millions of women would not have been abused and discriminated against by 'God-fearing men.'  

The Bible is not the best book to look to sometimes for finding reasons not to be mean to people we believe are below us in God's eyes.  

Edited November 15, 2018 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah The bold was left out of this article, I wonder why?

Slave raids were common along the Old Spanish Trail

From 1824–1848, Utah was part of Alta California Territory in Mexico. Mexican trading parties would often travel the Old Spanish Trail, which went through modern day Utah, and buy Indian slaves to sell in the neighboring territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico or other places in Alta California. Mexicans, Utes and Navajos would raid Paiute and sometimes Ute villages for slaves. Slavery had been made illegal in Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico in 1812 and in Alta California Territory in 1824, but lax enforcement and high profits kept it going.[1] Boys would sell for $100 and girls between $150 and $200. Indigenous girls could demand a higher price because they had a reputation for making the best house servants.[2] In addition, Mexican laws allowed for an aggressive debt bondage in the form of the peonage system.[3]

Shortly after, the Mormon Pioneers arrived in Salt Lake Valley, they began expanding into Indian territory, which often resulted in conflict. After expanding into Utah Valley, Brigham Young issued the extermination order against the Timpanogos, resulting in the Battle at Fort Utah, where many Timpanogos women and children were taken into slavery. Some were able to escape, but many died in slavery.[4] After expanding into Parowan, Mormons attacked a group of Indians, killing around 25 men and taking the women and children as slaves.[5]:274 News of the enslavement reached the US Government, who appointed Edward Cooper as Indian Agent in September 1850.[6] Edward Cooper made the issue of Indian slavery one of his first efforts.[7]

A statue of Chief Walkara who was a licensed slave trader in Utah.

At the encouragement of Mormon leaders, the Mormon pioneers started participating in the Indian slave trade.[8][9] In 1851, Apostle George A. Smith gave Chief Peteetneet and Walkara talking papers that certified "it is my desire that they should be treated as friends, and as they wish to Trade horses, Buckskins and Piede children, we hope them success and prosperity and good bargains."[10] Brigham Young encouraged the saints to "buy up the Lamanite children as fast as they could".[11] (Lamanite is a Mormon term for Native Americans.)

However, the Mormons strongly opposed the New Mexican slave trade.[3] In November 1851, Don Pedro Leon Lujan, a New Mexican slave trader who had been operating in Utah with a New Mexico license, asked Young as the newly appointed governor of Utah for a license to trade with the Indians, including slaves. Young refused to given Lujan a license to conduct any trade with the Indians. On the way home to New Mexico, Lujan's party was attacked by Ute Indians who stole his horses. Lujan retaliated by kidnapping some of their children to sell in New Mexico. He and his party were caught in Manti and charged with violating the Nonintercourse Act, which prohibited trading with the Indians without a valid license.[12] His property was seized and the children were sold into slavery to families in Manti. He contested, claiming it was hypocritical to not allow him to have slaves, but allow the Mormon families to have slaves.[13]

Many of Walker's band were upset by the interruption with the Mexican slave trade. In one graphic incident, Ute Indian Chief Arrapine, a brother of Chief Walkara, insisted that because the Mormons had stopped the Mexicans from buying these children, the Mormons were obligated to purchase them. In his book, Forty Years Among the Indians, Daniel Jones wrote, "several of us were present when he took one of these children by the heels and dashed its brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body towards us, telling us we had no hearts, or we would have bought it and saved its life."[2]

A month after legalizing slavery with the Act in Relation to Service, Utah passed the Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners, which officially legalized Indian Slavery in Utah. The bill provided several protections for the Indian slaves, including a requirement to educate and clothe the Indians, and a limit of twenty years, which was greater than the New Mexican limit of ten years.

Mormons continued taking children from their families long after the slave traders left and even began to actively solicit children from Paiute parents. They also began selling Indian slaves to each other.[14]:56 By 1853, each of the hundred households in Parowan had one or more Paiute children.[14]:57 Indian slaves were used for both domestic and manual labor.[15]:240 In 1857, Representative Justin Smith Morrill estimated that there were 400 Indian slaves in Utah.[9] Richard Kitchen has identified at least 400 Indian slaves taken into Mormon homes, but estimates even more went unrecorded because of the high mortality rate of Indian slaves. Many of them tried to escape.[5]

Edited November 15, 2018 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

BY believed in slavery...

Yes, and as a prophet of God, he should have known better.  But none of us are free from sin or the cultural influences and beliefs that help us to justify it rather than to find out God's will.

[Jeanne]

I can perhaps respond later in a better way...but excuse me...I need to throw up.

Had no idea.

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, and as a prophet of God, he should have known better.  But none of us are free from sin or the cultural influences and beliefs that help us to justify it rather than to find out God's will.

Yes, as a prophet of God he should have raised above the dust, but he failed to do that, and, as a result, he was on the wrong side of history. 

[smac97]

Just now, Jeanne said:

I can perhaps respond later in a better way...but excuse me...I need to throw up.

As will our descendants regarding our society's indifference to elective abortions.

I think Ben Shapiro makes some good points on this issue here (at the 3:30 mark):

And yet about 1 in 2 Americans are in favor of keeping elective abortions legal.

If we as a society can keep our lunch down while living in a society that allows around a million babies to be legally murdered each year, then perhaps some circumspection for the sins of our forefathers may be in order.

Again, Mormon 9:31 seems a good way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac