Was Brigham Young a Racist?

[majick275]

Katzpur:

I believe that I am in a better position to say what LDS doctrine is than you are.

Why? I taught your doctrine for years and certainlty appear to be more knowledgeable of it.

The Lamanites were described as “loathsome” because of their wickedness.

And when they repent? they become WHITE and delightsome. they were CURSED with dark skin.(acording to BoM) the BoA makes clear that black skin is a curse as well.

There is no LDS doctrine that speaks of Blacks as having been “less valient in the pre-existence.” That may be one man’s opinion, but that’s all it is.

Mark E. Petersen, Bruce R. Mconkie (apostles both)… more than one man. Brigham Young (a prophet) but here it is from PROPHET Joseph Fielding Smith:

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).

More dissembling on doctrine

 

[majick275]

Katzpur:

In essence, yes. We don’t expect perfection from our Prophets. I’m certainly hoping that you don’t expect perfection from your Popes. I wouldn’t want to place my faith in some of them either!

But your doctrine states that the Lord will NEVER allow the prophet to lead the church astray. Your church claims a higher standard.

 

[Katzpur]

majick275:

Mark E. Petersen, Bruce R. Mconkie (apostles both)… more than one man. Brigham Young (a prophet) but here it is from PROPHET Joseph Fielding Smith:

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).

More dissembling on doctrine

Joseph Fielding Smith was entitled to his own opinion. His opinion, however, was never canonized. Therefore, it is not LDS doctrine. Show me the same thing taught in one of our “Standard Works” and I’ll rethink my answer. Don’t waste too much time looking for it, though, because you won’t find it.

 

[Katzpur]

majick275:

But your doctrine states that the Lord will NEVER allow the prophet to lead the church astray. Your church claims a higher standard.

And yours doesn’t?

By the way, Majick, this will be the past response you will see from me on any topic. I have made it a firm policy not to waste my time talking to people whose minds are closed. There simply is no point in my doing so. I will continue to respond to posts from individuals who are willing to respect my beliefs. You may find that I address some of your questions in my responses to them.

 

[edmondhall]

Joseph Fielding Smith was entitled to his own opinion. His opinion, however, was never canonized. Therefore, it is not LDS doctrine. Show me the same thing taught in one of our “Standard Works” and I’ll rethink my answer

I’m confused. Can somebody explain to me the distinctions among: 1. JS’s opinion, 2. JS’s writings/saying that comprise the canon and 3. the “Standard Works”?

 

[majick275]

Joseph Fielding Smith was the LDS “Prophet” how could his teachings just be regarded as opinion?

I suppose Kathryn, that you consider general conference just some guys expressing their opinions? So when your prophet speaks, and your other general authorities as well, they are really teaching the “philosophies of men mingled with scripture”?

If you were to actually practice ONLY what is in your standard works then you would find it difficult to remaina memeber of your church. Think about it from a common sense point of view. Word of Wisdom, The Temple ordinances, How could these things be practiced without going beyond the standard works for guidance?

To get back on the OT… The BoM and the BoA (both “standard works”) make it clear that LDS doctrine is that dark skin is a curse that identifies sinful races. That alone is reason to view BY and the current LDS church as racist.

When did the LDS church refute Mark E. Petersen’s published remarks on racial segregation being the will of God? BY acting as the President of the LDS church stated that the penalty for interacial marriage was “death on the spot”. Show me in the “standard works” where these racist doctrines are denounced.

Joseph Fielding Smith led the LDS church as its prophet, seer and revelator. Your standard works show that you must accept his counsel as coming from God and we saw just that from the members during his presidency so to dismiss his teachings as just some guys opinion certainly appears inaccurate to me.

 

[Katzpur]

edmondhall:

I’m confused. Can somebody explain to me the distinctions among: 1. JS’s opinion, 2. JS’s writings/saying that comprise the canon and 3. the “Standard Works”?

Edmondhall,

I don’t know whether you are Catholic or not. If you are (and maybe even if you’re not) you will know what the phrase “ex cathedra” means. When the Pope speaks “ex cathedra,” he is considered to be infallible. What he says can be considered doctrinally binding on Catholics. He may not always speak “ex cathedra,” though. When he doesn’t, his words are not considered to be an official statement of Catholic doctrine.

It’s similar in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With regards to your question, #2 and #3 are essentially the same thing. Any of Joseph Smith’s writings that are part of the LDS canon would be found in the Doctrine and Covenants or in the Pearl of Great Price (excluding the books of Moses and Abraham, which are ancient writings). The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are two of the Church’s four “Standard Works,” the other two, of course, being the Bible (we use the KJV) and the Book of Mormon. Everything in the “Standard Works” is part of the LDS canon and is considered official doctrine.

Any teachings not found in the “Standard Works,” whether they are Joseph Smith’s, Brigham Young’s or Gordon B. Hinckley’s, are to be considered the opinions of men. These teachings would be what you have designated as #1. They may be inspired or not. They may be correct or not. But, they are not official doctrine.

 

[edmondhall]

OK, thanks for the explanation.
I am Catholic (since you asked)

 

[majick275]

Katzpur:

Edmondhall,

I don’t know whether you are Catholic or not. If you are (and maybe even if you’re not) you will know what the phrase “ex cathedra” means. When the Pope speaks “ex cathedra,” he is considered to be infallible. What he says can be considered doctrinally binding on Catholics. He may not always speak “ex cathedra,” though. When he doesn’t, his words are not considered to be an official statement of Catholic doctrine.

It’s similar in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With regards to your question, #2 and #3 are essentially the same thing. Any of Joseph Smith’s writings that are part of the LDS canon would be found in the Doctrine and Covenants or in the Pearl of Great Price (excluding the books of Moses and Abraham, which are ancient writings). The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are two of the Church’s four “Standard Works,” the other two, of course, being the Bible (we use the KJV) and the Book of Mormon. Everything in the “Standard Works” is part of the LDS canon and is considered official doctrine.

Any teachings not found in the “Standard Works,” whether they are Joseph Smith’s, Brigham Young’s or Gordon B. Hinckley’s, are to be considered the opinions of men. These teachings would be what you have designated as #1. They may be inspired or not. They may be correct or not. But, they are not official doctrine.

I can no longer stand by and watch the lies. This is directly from the current version (they change periodically) of these “standard works” and proves that LDS doctrine is NOT “sola scriptura”.

(Interesting to note the accompanying hypocrisy in which the Mormom who demands references chooses now to define Catholic doctrine without any references. Fortunately we have the catechism to correctly describe our doctrine. )

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

SECTION 68

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, November 1831, at the request of Orson Hyde, Luke S. Johnson, Lyman E. Johnson, and William E. McLellin. HC 1: 227—229. Although this revelation was given in response to supplication that the mind of the Lord be made known concerning the elders named, much of the content pertains to the whole Church.

1—5, Words of elders when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture; 6—12, Elders are to preach and baptize, and signs shall follow true believers; 13—24, Firstborn among the sons of Aaron may serve as the Presiding Bishop (that is, hold the keys of presidency as a bishop) under the direction of the First Presidency; 25—28, Parents are commanded to teach the gospel to their children; 29—35, The saints are to observe the Sabbath, labor diligently, and pray.

1 MY servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the aeverlasting• gospel, by the bSpirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the ccongregations• of the wicked, in their dsynagogues•, reasoning with and eexpounding• all scriptures unto them.

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—

3 And this is the aensample unto them, that they shall bspeak• as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the aHoly• Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower• of God unto salvation.
5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

 

[majick275]

There is a lengthy history of Mormons “lying for the Lord”, suppressing the truth,etc.

It started with Joseph Smith, who changed the “standard works” of the LDS church to first hide and cover up his womanizing and later to justify it. Compare the Book of Commandments with the Doctrine & Covenants, then look at the timeline of the revelations and Joseph’s polygamous “marriages”. When called to account for this by his own counselors and Apostles, many were excommunicated for Apostasy. This was the reason for the destruction of the newspaper in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith. Reprints of the one and only edition of the Nauvoo expositor are available online to verify this.

Look at Brigham Youngs dealings as the “theocrat” of “Deseret”. John Taylor spent much of his time as president of the LDS church hiding from the Law.

But I think it interesting that this is still directed by LDS leaders today.

This from Boyd K. Packer president of the quorum of twelve apostles:
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

“Elder” Packer was very influential in the “purges” of BYU and the LDS historians office where numerous LDS historians were excommuicated for telling the truth instead of what was “faith promoting”.

Here is another example of that:

BYU spokeswoman Margaret Smoot said that the removal of Hawkins was routine…
"However, Smoot’s predecessor, Paul Richards, 57, who left BYU last year, ridiculed that notion… 'The church wants to portray this image of being unified in all it does… It wants Mormons to be unquestioning–something I believe goes against church teachings and portrays a great insecurity.
“‘I worked in public affairs for the church for 13 years, and I had to lie all the time, and this has really battered my faith.’” (Arizona Republic, Oct. 10, 1993)
…and here isn’t aware of Gordon Hinckley’s BLATANT attempts to deceive the world about the LDS doctrine of etrnal progression?

So what do LDS members REALLY believe about what determines their doctrine?

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. Lucifer… wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking’…
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.” (The Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354)

Show me in any LDS publication where this is denounced.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi Majick,
I truly feel sorry for Kathryn, Casen, and amgid. They are obviously decent people who wish to be faithful to their religion. But they are so ashamed of the crazy non-Christian doctrines taught by their leaders that they have retreated into this sola scriptura dodge in an attempt to be both Mormon and Christian at the same time. They would probably be more comfortable in the RLDS Church, which rejects everything JS said or did after about 1838, and luckily avoids BY et al altogether.

As you have so ably pointed out, Mormons cannot be sola scriptura - their own scriptures declare as much. They are stuck with their Prophets, Seers and Revelators for better or worse.

The Mormons here do not disagree with us. They disagree with the LDS Church. Again, I feel truly sorry for them. Been there, done that, and it is a painful process. I hope they will eventually find their way to Rome as so many others have.

God love you,
Paul

 

[majick275]

Why such “vicious” attacks you might ask?

Because Mormonism is NOT just another friendly neighborhood church. It is a dangerous cult that uses many nefarious techniques to aggressively recruit and control members. It was founded by a womanizing con man with delusions of granduer. (He ran for President even) It was led by an isolationist control freak (Brigham Young) who tried to found a “Mormon nation” (Deseret) this sounds like David Koresh and Jim Jones.

Even today they pressure people to join with little or no knowledge of what they are getting into and then take over their lives with stern demands for money. They do not ever publish financial reports accounting for the money and they do not even publish their “handbook of instructions” that is used by their local leaders to run their church. Why the secret combinations?

The LDS church has from its very beginning savagely attacked the Catholic faith as “the great and abominable church of the devil” whose “creeds are an abomination in my sight”.

They will lie and deceive all about their teachings in their agressive marketing efforts. They start the brainwashing young by putting young children in front of congregations, holding them up to a microphone and telling them to proclaim that they “KNOW” this church is true. After a lifetime of this conditioning (including the two year mission) and the deliberate suppression of scholarly research (under threat of excommunication) it is no surprise that you will get Mormons who rise up in indignation when caught in their lies because they actually don’t see their own deceptions.

I highly recomend the writings of Steve Benson as an insightful look into the inner workings of the LDS church today.

Compare the original 1830 Book of Mormon with the current one, Compare the original Book of Commandments and lectures on Faith with the 1977 version of the Doctrine & Covenants and the current version of the D&C. You will see the “standard works” manipulated to support whatever the leaders of this cult want it to.

For 30 years Brigham Young led this church in abominable practices and false doctrines that are today denounced by the LDS themselves yet they will tell you that he is a true prophet of God.

When we discuss the LDS church from a Catholic point of view let’s be careful to avoid the lying, hypocritical “missionaries” that lurk here hoping to lure away the unwary.

 

[majick275]

Thanks Paul,

I had to get that rant off my chest. I know it doesn’t sound charitable but even Jesus chased out the moneychangers from the Temple.
rant over, civility restored.
Peace be with you.

 

[majick275]

I wanted to find a more specific example of what I felt was happening here. Some verifiable situation where an LDS leader not only lied about their doctrine but used the “sola scriptura” excuse to cover it up.

I found John Taylor (3rd President of the LDS church) to have done just that. Orson Pratt published a tract in 1850 where Taylor is quoted thus:

“We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such than [sic] none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore … I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. ‘Doctrine and Coventants,’ page 330. [1850 version] … Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again…”

Now it is of interest that at that time he had already been practicing polygamy with these women:

( listed from D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: [vol. 1] Origins of Power, p 597)

Leonora Cannon, md 1833, 4 children
Elizabeth Kaighin, md 1843, 3 children
Jane Ballantyne, md 1844, 3 children
Anna Ballantyne (Allen), md 1844, separated 1845, divorced 1852
Mary A. Oakley, md 1845, 5 children
Mary A. Utley, md 1846
Mary Ramsbottom, md 1846
Sarah Thornton (Coleman) md 1846, div 1852
Lydia Dible (Granger Smith), md 1846
Ann Hughlings (Pitchforth), md 1846
Sophia Whittaker, md 1847, 8 children
Harriet Whittaker, md 1847, 3 children

Of even greater note is that former LDS historian Quinn who discovered this was excommunicated for publishing it. (part of of the “Packer purges”)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

But your doctrine states that the Lord will NEVER allow the prophet to lead the church astray. Your church claims a higher standard.

I have answered that question for you in the thread called, “Common Tactic”. I refer you to that.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

I have answered that question for you in the thread called, “Common Tactic”. I refer you to that.

amgid

but section 68 of your D&C refutes what you said.

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the aHoly• Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower• of God unto salvation.
5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

This certainly appears to be very clear. It makes a PROMISE from the Lord that everything they say when inspired by the Holy Ghost
is the will, mind and voice of the Lord.

This promise changes everything in my mind. This is supposed to reassure the members that the “prophet” cannot and will not make doctrinal errors.

Show me in your standard works where it says that this is not so.

 

[Katzpur]

PaulDupre:

Hi Majick,
I truly feel sorry for Kathryn, Casen, and amgid. They are obviously decent people who wish to be faithful to their religion. But they are so ashamed of the crazy non-Christian doctrines taught by their leaders that they have retreated into this sola scriptura dodge in an attempt to be both Mormon and Christian at the same time.

I’m not going to attempt to speak for any Latter-day Saint but myself. I’m not quite sure why you are saying this. I certainly never “retreated into a sola scriptura dodge.” On the contrary, if you will reread my post, I said exactly the opposite – that there never was a revelation given which authorized the prohibition against the Blacks holding the priesthood. I believe that this practice was instituted by men, not by God. This is only my opinion. Casen and amgid may disagree; many Latter-day Saints do. I believe you owe me an apology.

As far as returning to Rome is concerned, I can assure you that’s not going to happen in my case. Judging from how Rome’s representatives on this forum have treated those who don’t share their views, Rome doesn’t sound like a particularly Christian place to me.

 

[PaulDupre]

Katzpur:

I’m not going to attempt to speak for any Latter-day Saint but myself. I’m not quite sure why you are saying this. I certainly never “retreated into a sola scriptura dodge.” On the contrary, if you will reread my post, I said exactly the opposite – that there never was a revelation given which authorized the prohibition against the Blacks holding the priesthood. I believe that this practice was instituted by men, not by God. This is only my opinion. Casen and amgid may disagree; many Latter-day Saints do. I believe you owe me an apology.

I was referring not only to this thread, but to the last few days when you three attempted in several threads to mount a defense based on “if it’s not in the 4 standard works then it’s not LDS doctrine”, which defense we showed to be ridiculous.

If you want an apology, then I am pleased to give it to you, though it will not change the reality of what has gone on here the past few days .

As far as returning to Rome is concerned, I can assure you that’s not going to happen in my case. Judging from how Rome’s representatives on this forum have treated those who don’t share their views, Rome doesn’t sound like a particularly Christian place to me.

Was that supposed to cut me to the quick? It would take more than that.

Paul

 

[majick275]

Katzpur:

I’m not going to attempt to speak for any Latter-day Saint but myself. I’m not quite sure why you are saying this. I certainly never “retreated into a sola scriptura dodge.” On the contrary, if you will reread my post, I said exactly the opposite – that there never was a revelation given which authorized the prohibition against the Blacks holding the priesthood. I believe that this practice was instituted by men, not by God. This is only my opinion. Casen and amgid may disagree; many Latter-day Saints do. I believe you owe me an apology.

As far as returning to Rome is concerned, I can assure you that’s not going to happen in my case. Judging from how Rome’s representatives on this forum have treated those who don’t share their views, Rome doesn’t sound like a particularly Christian place to me.

Well, there is the BoM and the BoA as examples of the racism inherent in the standard works.

As far as “revelation” goes, one has to believe that BY is telling the truth when he says his general conference talks are revealtions. If so, then He and John Taylor gave some very detailed revelations on why it was necessary to single out blacks as unable to receive the priesthood and the temple ordinances. (even though it contradicted Joseph Smith ordaining Elijah Abel an elder and sending him on a mission)

in more modern times the Apostles Bruce Mconkie and Mark E Petersen both published what they claimed was the lords will in these matteres and D&C section 68 would support that as being doctrine it certainly had the effect of doctrine in that caused the members to practice it. They both claimed it was the Lord who wanted racial segregation and that worthy black memebers of the church who were faithful enough to warrant “exaltation” in the afterlife would become servants in the celestial Kingdom.(see the following sources)

Elder MARK E. PETERSON

Race Problems – As They Affect The Church
Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.

BRUCE R. MCCONKIE
Mormon Doctrine,

JOSPEH FIELDING SMITH
Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66.

BRIGHAM YOUNG
Journal of Discourses

JOHN TAYLOR
Journal of Discourses

That these men led the LDS church, and spoke these doctrines to the church as a whole so that they were in fact practiced by the membership ahold be viewed against the backdrop of D&C section 68’s promise from the Lord that whatsoever they spoke would be his will.

By their fruits ye shall know them… That the LDS church practiced this blarant racism is not in dispute. I would say that makes it hard to claim that it was never doctrine.

 

[PaulDupre]

Katzpur:

…there never was a revelation given which authorized the prohibition against the Blacks holding the priesthood. I believe that this practice was instituted by men, not by God. This is only my opinion.

Let me call your attention to the Pearl of Great Price (revealed to Joseph Smith).

The Book of Abraham (Abr 1:21-27) explains clearly that the lineage of Cain, preserved through Ham who married a Cannanite woman, “could not have the right of priesthood”.

The Book of Moses (in 7:22), explains that “the seed of Cain were black, and had no place among them”.

Most white Protestants already believed this anyway. Joseph just conveniently produced a scripture that said so in no uncertain terms.

Paul