Article re: Child Slavery in Early Utah

[MiserereNobis]

Intriguing.

I don't think it is an example of presentism to say that Brigham Young and the other LDS folk should have been against slavery in 1850, should have known it was wrong, and should not have practiced it in any form. We're not talking Portugal in 1610; this is a mere 10 year prior to the civil war and anti-slavery sentiment was very very high. Brigham Young, as a prophet of God, should have been leading the charge against such a corrupt and immoral system, instead of being a part of it.

@smac97 has brought up abortion multiple times. Obviously as a Catholic I agree with him (remember, Catholics are much more against abortion than Mormons are... I still don't understand how you call it murder but then you say it's ok in the case of the mother's life in danger, rape, or incest. But I digress.). But the analogy doesn't work because the LDS church is and always has been against abortion. On abortion, your church is leading the charge. On slavery, you were behind the moral curve. 

Brigham Young was wrong, very wrong, and you can't excuse it with presentism.

Edited November 17, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/15/2018 at 6:55 PM, Calm said:

Probably because it would have started a war which would have resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

If it had been a white LDS girl, do you think they would have done nothing to stop a war from happening?

Somehow I don't think so.

[katherine the great]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I believe he was saying that it was the Romans who introduced slavery to the Europeans, not that they invented slavery. But who are the Europeans in this case? The Celts? The pre-Celtic peoples of Europe? I think it would be impossible to show that slavery was unknown or unpracticed by any people on this earth. It has been a universal abomination.

I understood from his clarification of slavery that he meant the institutionalized slave trade (as a business). That may be true but there is archaeological evidence that challenges that assumption but certainly doesn't falsify it. Without a written record, all we can do is piece together scenarios from the material culture left behind and what we know about human behavior. Some early iron age sites in England and Wales show conclusive evidence of gang shackles, foot shackles and hand shackles located near obvious trade routes. Expensive Mediterranean goods found in those areas when there was really no tangible export product of enough value to trade for those things except human products. Again, this is evidence but certainly not proof of a pre Roman slave trade in Europe.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Intriguing.

I don't think it is an example of presentism to say that Brigham Young and the other LDS folk should have been against slavery in 1850, should have known it was wrong, and should not have practiced it in any form. We're not talking Portugal in 1610; this is a mere 10 year prior to the civil war and anti-slavery sentiment was very very high. Brigham Young, as a prophet of God, should have been leading the charge against such a corrupt and immoral system, instead of being a part of it.@smac97 has brought up abortion multiple times. Obviously as a Catholic I agree with him (remember, Catholics are much more against abortion than Mormons are... I still don't understand how you call it murder but then you say it's ok in the case of the mother's life in danger, rape, or incest. But I digress.).

You almost got a rep, but there are situations where killing is not murder. 

Ex 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

So for example since Laban tried to kill Laman, Lemuel and Nephi, and took all their money, the Lord was justified in ordering that he be killed under the law. 

We are justified in killing in self-defense if we have to. If a mother's life is in danger, it may not be self-defense, but she may have other very dependent children, so I don't believe it is right to tell her she cannot try to save her life. And for some women having a baby in instances of rape or incest is extremely mentally traumatizing, and unhealthy. Women have plenty of miscarriages, so it seems something God can handle. I no longer feel obligated to insist that a baby enter the world in all circumstances, because I now believe that the baby will get another chance to progress in another world. It is apparently God's way of giving a bye. I guess you don't believe that, but anyway, my point was killing is not always forbidden - murder is.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

(remember, Catholics are much more against abortion than Mormons are... I still don't understand how you call it murder but then you say it's ok in the case of the mother's life in danger, rape, or incest. But I digress.).

Just to clarify, we don't believe that abortion is the same as murder.  That's why we believe that in extreme cases, it is allowable.

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify, we don't believe that abortion is the same as murder.  That's why we believe that in extreme cases, it is allowable.

I was responding to Smac who specifically called it murder.

ETA: here's what he says:

Quote

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.

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If a mother's life is in danger, it may not be self-defense, but she may have other very dependent children, so I don't believe it is right to tell her she cannot try to save her life. And for some women having a baby in instances of rape or incest is extremely mentally traumatizing, and unhealthy.

These seem weak excuses to end the life of a completely innocent child who has done nothing.

But this would be derailing the thread, so I don't need to continue the discussion

[strappinglad]

I sometimes wonder if people actually read the scriptures. Slavery is found all through them. There were laws, supposedly dictated by God, concerning the use of slaves. As Katherine said, any time one group made war on another, slaves were taken. The BoM talks about the Lamanites taking slaves. Heaven's Paul wanted his church members to be slaves... to Christ...but that is the word he uses. I agree that there are slaves and then there are Slaves and then there are SLAVES ! A large fraction of the Russian people were in a slave-like position for about 70 years. To some degree most of us are slaves to debt at one time or another. I need to be reminded...which of the ten commandments specifically forbids slavery? I mean, the Israelites were in bondage for centuries and yet God seems to have glossed over that problem when giving the commandments.

   In my early teens I worked all summer feeding 500 hogs while my Dad was building a house. I asked how much I was going to be paid for my work. He said he would see to it that I was fed and had a room to sleep in . Sounds a bit like slave wages to me ....who knew.

 I don't condone slavery, but riding the moral high horse about it when our modern society has contributed to thousands if not millions of slaves worldwide...even when we shop at a clothing store , seems hypocritical. Maybe what BY and the members did with the Natives was choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Maybe it was fueled by compassion. Maybe it was fueled by self interest. Be careful in judgment.  

[MiserereNobis]

20 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I sometimes wonder if people actually read the scriptures. Slavery is found all through them. There were laws, supposedly dictated by God, concerning the use of slaves. As Katherine said, any time one group made war on another, slaves were taken. The BoM talks about the Lamanites taking slaves. Heaven's Paul wanted his church members to be slaves... to Christ...but that is the word he uses. I agree that there are slaves and then there are Slaves and then there are SLAVES ! A large fraction of the Russian people were in a slave-like position for about 70 years. To some degree most of us are slaves to debt at one time or another. I need to be reminded...which of the ten commandments specifically forbids slavery? I mean, the Israelites were in bondage for centuries and yet God seems to have glossed over that problem when giving the commandments.

   In my early teens I worked all summer feeding 500 hogs while my Dad was building a house. I asked how much I was going to be paid for my work. He said he would see to it that I was fed and had a room to sleep in . Sounds a bit like slave wages to me ....who knew.

 I don't condone slavery, but riding the moral high horse about it when our modern society has contributed to thousands if not millions of slaves worldwide...even when we shop at a clothing store , seems hypocritical. Maybe what BY and the members did with the Natives was choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Maybe it was fueled by compassion. Maybe it was fueled by self interest. Be careful in judgment.  

Slavery apologetics. I guess I wasn't fully expecting it. But hey, there are some really great resources from the south in the mid 18th century that you could use to bolster your argument.

Do you believe slavery is morally wrong or no?

[Storm Rider]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:04 PM, 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.  

Free labor? I think that is what their own children were doing - serving as free labor. I see no evidence that the Mormons were attempting to buy free labor; to the contrary, they thought they were freeing them from abuse by conquering American Indian tribes that sought to sell them for a profit. 

This topic is fraught with emotional reactions and presentism. Of the very little I read here, this is not a story about Mormons enslaving the local Indian population, but of Mormon pioneers freeing them. 

[MiserereNobis]

Papal positions on slavery:

Quote

Unfortunately, slavery returned to European society in the fifteenth century, with the conquest of the Canary Islands and the discovery of the New World. But from 1435 to 1890, a succession of popes condemned the slave trade and slavery in no uncertain terms. The first pope to do so was Eugenius IV (r. 1431-1447), who in his 1435 bull Sicut Dudum demanded that Christians free all enslaved natives of the Canary Islands within fifteen days; failure to do so would incur automatic excommunication. Thus, fifty-seven years before Columbus’s first voyage, the Roman pontiff unequivocally prohibited the enslavement of native peoples. 

In 1537, Pope Paul III (r. 1534-1549) issued a bull, Sublimus Dei, which taught that natives peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Gregory XIV (r. 1590-1591) promulgated Cum Sicuti, which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors’ prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In the seventeenth century, Urban VIII (r. 1623-1644) promulgated Commissum Nobis (1639) in support of the Spanish king’s (Philip IV) edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World. 

The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies is what led to the African slave trade. This new form of bondage was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Innocent XI (r. 1676-1689). In 1741, Benedict XIV (r. 1740-1758) issued Immensa Pastorum, which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Gregory XVI (r. 1831-1846) issued In Supremo to condemn the enslavement of Africans. Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903) promulgated two bulls condemning slavery in 1888 and 1890.

Bolded: notice the timing here. Also notice that excommunication was the penalty for ignoring these papal decrees.

Unfortunately, many royal governments ignored these, as did many of the American bishops.

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This topic is fraught with emotional reactions and presentism.

Please address my point about presentism made here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71267-article-re-child-slavery-in-early-utah/?do=findComment&comment=1209870163

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

And we're not just talking about Native slaves here. We're talking about Mormon leaders owning and condoning slavery in Utah prior to the civil war, and Brigham Young arguing for its legality.

Wikipedia has a fascinating article about Mormonism and slavery.

[strappinglad]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you believe slavery is morally wrong or no?

I do think slavery is morally wrong. That said, I try not to equate what those members did to the natives with what even the natives did to other tribes. Call it rationalizing if you wish. I need to see the evidence that all the native children spent the rest of their lives in servitude to the Mormon families. I can stand corrected if need be. Were they hunted down and shot if they ran away like many blacks were ? Were they beaten regularly ( more than the biological children) ? My own country has a long dark history with ' residential schools' ...good intentions ( I hope ) ,but  bad results whose effects stretch for decades. It is said that the road to 'ell is paved with good intentions. I recall the Lamanite program in the 1960s that was an attempt to break a cycle of poverty and drug and alcohol abuse in Natives by bringing them into LDS families for schooling etc. To say it had mixed results would be charitable.

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I recall the Lamanite program in the 1960s that was an attempt to break a cycle of poverty and drug and alcohol abuse in Natives by bringing them into LDS families for schooling etc. To say it had mixed results would be charitable.

I hadn't heard of this so I did a quick read on Wikipedia and there it says that Kimball claimed in general conference 1960 that the skin color of Natives placed in foster care was lighter than their siblings as evidence of a prophecy coming true that Natives would be made white. Just to make sure this was accurate I did an internet search and indeed the official report has him saying this (along with some Native missionaries having turned as light as Anglos).

I guess I'm learning more about the attitudes of the LDS church towards blacks and Natives than I knew before. Hmm.

[Storm Rider]

52 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Please address my point about presentism made here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71267-article-re-child-slavery-in-early-utah/?do=findComment&comment=1209870163

 

 

The emotional distaste for individuals that purchased children from Indian slave traders with the objective of protecting them from abuse, torture, and death seems not only seems stupid, but it reeks of an emotional reaction due to the word slavery. Would it have been better if they had not purchased the children due to an abject horror of dealing in the slave trade?  This is the presentism that I was addressing.  The Church itself was against slavery. Joseph Smith was completely against it and supported freeing the slaves. Brigham Young had a more nuanced approach. While leading the saints, he committed that Utah would enter as a free state; yet, at the same time, they were allowing those who came to Utah territory with slaves to admit them. 

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Brigham Young had a more nuanced approach. While leading the saints, he committed that Utah would enter as a free state; yet, at the same time, they were allowing those who came to Utah territory with slaves to admit them. 

It appears you are wrong:

Quote

He [Brigham Young] also supported African slavery and said that "Inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery."^[74] He argued that the blacks had the Curse of Ham placed on them which made them servants of servants and that he was not authorized to remove it. He also argued that blacks needed to serve masters because they are not capable of ruling themselves, and that when treated right, blacks were much better off as slaves than if they were free.^[74] However, he urged moderation, not to treat Africans as beasts of the field, nor to elevate them to equality with the whites, which he believed was against the will of God.^[8]:109 He said that this was the principle of true liberty according to the designs of God.^[8]:110 On January 27, Orson Pratt objected to Young's remarks, saying it was not man's duty to enforce Cain's curse, and that slavery had not been authorized by God.^[75] Young responded that the Lord had revealed these instructions to him.^[76] After this, the Utah legislature passed an Act in Relation to Service, which officially legalized slavery in Utah Territory, and a month later passed an Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners, which specifically dealt with Indian slavery.

Yes, it is from wikipedia, but you can peruse the source materials yourself (click on footnote 74 to go to the speech from the Historian's Office and footnote 76 to go to a fairmormon.org).

I wouldn't call Young's statements here "nuanced."

So, Brigham Young IS in favor of slavery and tells the Utah legislature to make it legal in Utah, which it was for 10 years. Mormon apostles owned slaves (Smoot and Rich), so obviously the church couldn't have been against slavery and allowed its own apostles to be slave masters.

This has been an interesting night of reading for me so far. I guess I assumed the LDS church was anti-slavery, but I was wrong. I suggest you do some more research on the LDS church and slavery in Utah, and not just with Native Americans but blacks as well.

Edited November 18, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

@Storm Rider: There is also this:

I'm now reading the general conference address by Brigham Young in 1863 where he says the civil war is a waste and will not free the slaves because God has decreed that blacks must be enslaved because of the curse of Ham. He says that Christians are wrong in thinking they can free the slaves. We should treat the slaves kindly, but they should remain slaves.

It seems pretty clear that Brigham Young is pro-slavery, albeit a "kind" slavery (an impossibility, of course).

Edited November 18, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

36 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Joseph Smith was completely against it and supported freeing the slaves.

It looks like you are wrong about this, too.

From the fairmormon.org website:

Quote

In 1836, April to be exact and that month is significant, Joseph Smith releases a statement in the Messenger and Advocate. In it he endorses slavery as something that is divinely inspired and, in fact, it was a great protective agent for the Caucasian community. “After all,” he said, “do we want these degraded people coming into our society and associating with our women? No, we don’t.”

Now, the website claims that he said this to avoid being labeled an abolitionist and to save the Mormons from mob attacks. This may well be true, but he openly stated that slavery was divinely inspired, whatever his motivations. I guess I find it hard to reconcile your words ("completely against it") and his words ("divinely inspired"). I'll go with his words.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I hadn't heard of this so I did a quick read on Wikipedia and there it says that Kimball claimed in general conference 1960 that the skin color of Natives placed in foster care was lighter than their siblings as evidence of a prophecy coming true that Natives would be made white. Just to make sure this was accurate I did an internet search and indeed the official report has him saying this (along with some Native missionaries having turned as light as Anglos).

I guess I'm learning more about the attitudes of the LDS church towards blacks and Natives than I knew before. Hmm.

I think the Church has generally read the BoM a little too literally here. The scriptures do say that when they accept Christ that they shall become white, but it also says the scales will fall from their eyes. This is clearly figurative language. They have no "real" scales over their eyes. If "skin" is read as "countenance" as I believe it is used in the OT as well, the scriptures make more sense. The plain fact is for years the BoM was read a certain way, that is just not real. The Nephites were by no means the first people in the Americas(nor were the Jaredites), and they certainly weren't the fathers of all Natives. There were tens of millions of other Natives in the Americas at the time.

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Papal positions on slavery:

Bolded: notice the timing here. Also notice that excommunication was the penalty for ignoring these papal decrees.

Unfortunately, many royal governments ignored these, as did many of the American bishops.

The Catholic Church is hardly innocent when it comes to slavery as I speak about it (Chattel with no rights). "Bishops and priests even brought their slaves with them to the Nicene council. Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves, and the naval galleys of the Papal States  used captured Muslim galley slaves,^[ Roman Catholic teaching began to turn more strongly against "unjust" forms of slavery in general, beginning in 1435, prohibiting the enslavement of the recently baptised, culminating in condemnation of the enslavement of indigenous peoples by Pope Paul III in 1537. However, when the Age of Discovery greatly increased the number of slaves owned by Christians, the response of the clergy, under strong political pressures, was confused and ineffective in preventing the establishment of slave societies in the colonies of Catholic countries. Earlier Papal bulls such as Pope Nicholas V's 1452 Dum Diversas, or Romanus Pontifex from 1454, permitting the "perpetual servitude" of saracens and pagans in Africa, were used to justify enslavement of natives and the appropriation of their lands during this era. "  

So that is basically about 1000 years of slave owning in the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Spaniards met the American Natives, one of their first impulses was to enslave these people who met them, and offered them whatever they wanted.

On the other hand slavery lasted about 10 years under Brigham Young. While that was 10 years too long, it is much shorter than the Catholic endorsement of it, which lasted over 1000 years. So if you're inclined to compare, I though I'd share that.

Edited November 18, 2018 by RevTestament

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It looks like you are wrong about this, too.

From the fairmormon.org website:

Now, the website claims that he said this to avoid being labeled an abolitionist and to save the Mormons from mob attacks. This may well be true, but he openly stated that slavery was divinely inspired, whatever his motivations. I guess I find it hard to reconcile your words ("completely against it") and his words ("divinely inspired"). I'll go with his words.

His words don't seem to reconcile with his actions.  He freely admitted black people into the community of saints as equals, and into his own house (not as slaves).

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I hadn't heard of this so I did a quick read on Wikipedia and there it says that Kimball claimed in general conference 1960 that the skin color of Natives placed in foster care was lighter than their siblings as evidence of a prophecy coming true that Natives would be made white. Just to make sure this was accurate I did an internet search and indeed the official report has him saying this (along with some Native missionaries having turned as light as Anglos).

I guess I'm learning more about the attitudes of the LDS church towards blacks and Natives than I knew before. Hmm.

I hate to know the things Kimball has said, where before I grew to really like him when he was prophet in my formative years. But had I known that he said the things he did, not so much. And my husband spent time with him on his mission and a birthday party for Camilla. So it was always fun to share the photo of my husband standing next to him and they being the same height. Kimball was misguided in his thinking, maybe believed the BoM mean't color of skin, like the rest of us when it came to "white and delightsome". 

[The Nehor]

In antiquity slavery may have been the more humane option. You win a war. What do you do with those you captured. There is no one to ransome them, if you release them you are endangering yourself with the potential for another war, if you release them without anything they will probably die......so you make them work for you and keep them alive.

The problem is that that creates a market. Suddenly others want easy labor and where there is demand some entrepreneur will create supply. If war/raids are what is needed to create slaves someone will step in and make it happen. 

It is worth noting that slavery is not entirely abolished legally in the United States. The amendment abolishing slavery has an exception and it is being used.

[Anijen]

Two thoughts"

 Slavery:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Presentism Presentism should not be disregarded (this is where I disagree with MiserereNobis).  People should not hold a critical adherence to present-day attitudes or interpret past events in terms of modern day values and concepts. If so, then they are commiting a modern day fallacy in historical writing. Presentism is a form of cultural bias. Slavery comes in tiers.

We should not compare slavery of one time compared to another time. For example; it is popular these days to bash on Columbus as the father of the slave trade (not true). Columbus when appointed governor used a feudal system (under the control of a noble). This feudal system was the same system used in Europe at the time. Columbus did not start the colonies slave trade (Columbus never made it to the United States). Lord's, Vassals, and Fiefs had different rolls and duties. A peasant's roll was governed by Manorialism.

Indentured servitude (voluntarily contracts to work for a period of time) is often described as a form of slavery. I disagree and wrote about this in a prior post on this thread.

Slavery is evil (forced to work against their own will). The Bible condones it and some places regulates it. Joseph Smith did not believe in it, Brigham Young did. 

Abortion:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I side with Smac (abortion is murder). I also side with MiserereNobis.  I personally believe that abortion is murder, thus, I personally cannot justify abortion even for rape or incest.  The argument that Reproduction rights gives the woman a right to to decide when to have a baby or not to have a baby is okay with me if that decision is made before conception and steps are taken to either have a baby or prevent a baby. But what happens if a woman decided not to have a baby when she is nine months pregnant? Eight months? Six months?

If the baby is outside the womb and someone stuck a knife into the baby we would call it murder. If the baby is inside the womb and a knife kills a baby we call that a human right. So we decide that the baby in the womb has no human rights, yet a pregnant woman's rights to her own convenience outweighs the baby's rights.  It should not be called abortion, or termination of a fetus, it is a human being, so it should be called the killing of a human being. A pregnant mom should not have the power to choose to kill a human being.

The question which often arises is; when is it ok to kill the baby? Is it okay to kill the baby right up to the very end (32 weeks)? Is it ok to kill the baby at the 4th month when the bone marrow is about to form? Is it ok to kill the baby at week 15 when the baby has taste buds? Is it ok to kill the baby at week 14? At the 14th week, the baby's heart is pumping several quarts of blood through its body every day. Is it ok to kill the baby at week 9 or 10 when the baby's teeth are formed and the baby has fingernails? How about week 4 when the baby is 10,000 times the size of the fertilized egg, its starting to form eyes, legs, and hands, brain waves are detectable, mouth and lips are present? how about week 3, the baby's backbone, spinal column, and nervous system are forming, the liver, kidneys, and intestines are beginning to take shape? How about at day 22, the heart is already beating with the child's blood (it may even have a different blood type than the mother)? So at what point is it ok to murder that child because the mom has a personal convenience issue? Hillary Clinton has agreed with abortion at the last minute. Basically she says it should be ok for a baby to be partially born (everything but the head is out and then stab the infant to death, or crush its skull.

Because its legal does that make it right? I hope you all answered "no" here.

• Would we kill someone in a coma?
• Would we kill a person whose heart cannot function without a pacemaker?
• Would we kill a family member who lives in our house because we didn't want them there or because their timing of him or her living in our house is inconvenient to us?

What gives us the right to do so to a human baby just because it is still in the womb? I say we do not have that right. I say it is killing of another human being.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Anijen