Was Brigham Young a Racist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maccabees
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maccabees

Guest
Brigham Young said about black people in his own Journal of Discourses, 7:291
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the ‘servant of servants;’ and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood.” - 09/19/2003 - anon

Ouch!

It appears not only was he racist but your entire church not until 1978 where blacks given permission to the priesthood and this only after the governemnt once again threatened the cult with revoking its tax exempt status.

Explanation for bigotry in modern times?
 
precisely. but remember, that the lds church and its people have no guarantee of any doctrine of their prophets anymore. their doctrines and covenants can change at anytime. they do not hold to anything enduringly for their prophet can change anything he wants to, especially when the government threatens their money.

isn’t it odd that god seems to change his mind in his lds church when the pressure of humans and money is concerned?

I have neevr seen that teaching in scripture, or even in the book of mormon, yet they teach it. they conform to the world, instead of ttransforming it.
 
40.png
papist1:
isn’t it odd that god seems to change his mind in his lds church when the pressure of humans and money is concerned?

I have neevr seen that teaching in scripture, or even in the book of mormon, yet they teach it. they conform to the world, instead of ttransforming it.
Click to expand...
My entire life I’ve never been taught this so called doctrine. That’s because the Journal of Discourses isn’t official doctrine! It’s speculation on the mysteries of God written by church leaders for members to ponder but it is not considered official church doctrine. Church doctrine is canonized in our standard works. We don’t believe that God randomly changes His mind as you suggest but we also believe that church leaders, when sharing their personal opinions on things that have not been revealed by God can disagree with each other and even be wrong! Why is this concept so difficult to understand? If a Catholic leader writes a book in which he speculates or shares his personal opinion is it automatically considered binding church doctrine? For LDS that is not the case. We don’t believe our leaders are infallible.
 
Except that:

1.) Young expressly declaired the JoD to be “as good as scripture”, its extemperaneous sermons to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2.) the JoD is still used as a reference document for many of the teachings found in even the most recently published teacher’s manuals.

Distancing yourself from the JoD is not particularly fruitful, or valid.
 
40.png
BJRumph:
Distancing yourself from the JoD is not particularly fruitful, or valid.
Click to expand...
Actually I’m a big fan of the JoD and find it fascinating. However, it’s not official church doctrine. Keeping that in mind I enjoy it.
 
What was official doctrine until 1978 was that blacks were inferior so much so that they could not be priest.
Now explain to me why blacks were not allowed to the priesthood besides the obvious beleif in racism and perhpas you have a point. But I think your dancing around the issue here.
 
40.png
Casen:
Actually I’m a big fan of the JoD and find it fascinating. However, it’s not official church doctrine. Keeping that in mind I enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Mein Kampf is a facinating book as well but no one should use it (any part of it) as a political or social guide. The same can be said of JoD. Its bigoted content bred over a century of overt racism, and in my opinion, still breeds bigotry in many in the LDS church.
 
While I disagree with this particular teaching (and well, lets face it mormonism in general). I do find it offensive when Catholics (and anyone else) berrate Mormons for teaching this. I mean they can’t help what they believe to be doctrine. Much as we can’t help disdaining contraception, abortion and women priests. Ofcourse the difference being, we are right they are terribly, terribly, TERRIBLY wrong. However, Church leaders (no matter what denomination) don’t huddle together and say (except for maybe the JW’s) “Gee how can we make some strange doctrines that will turn the world against us?” They preach what they must. As we would answer if accosted by (well meaning) protestant heretics, we teach what we believe (and in our case what is) true. So leave those poor mormons alone, they changed it, they used to believe it. Who cares? Concentrate on converting 'em. Ie showing them God’s real plan and covenant.
 
The problem with that is that the residuals of those wrong teachings affects American culture as a whole, and different parts of the country in particular. Thse Mormons who are somewhat enlightened (and choose to not convert) have a responsibility to change their culture, to influence their communities to abandon that kind of thinking.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
What was official doctrine until 1978 was that blacks were inferior so much so that they could not be priest.
Now explain to me why blacks were not allowed to the priesthood besides the obvious beleif in racism and perhpas you have a point. But I think your dancing around the issue here.
Click to expand...
Why was the tribe of Levi the only one allowed in the temple in ancient Israel? Was it because the other tribes were inferior? Perhaps racism against the other tribes? Or could there have been another reason?
 
40.png
Casen:
Why was the tribe of Levi the only one allowed in the temple in ancient Israel? Was it because the other tribes were inferior? Perhaps racism against the other tribes? Or could there have been another reason?
Click to expand...
The Levites were set apart by God for the priesthood. Just as today priests are ordained to do things that the laity is not allowed to do. It is not a matter of genetic superiority, it is a matter of vocation. Also, the Levites weren’t a separate race of people but were tribes decended from the sons of Jacob.

The Levites being set apart for the priesthood is a far cry from the disgusting, blatant, and pervasive racism promulgated by Mormonism.
 
40.png
Casen:
My entire life I’ve never been taught this so called doctrine. That’s because the Journal of Discourses isn’t official doctrine! It’s speculation on the mysteries of God written by church leaders for members to ponder but it is not considered official church doctrine. Church doctrine is canonized in our standard works. We don’t believe that God randomly changes His mind as you suggest but we also believe that church leaders, when sharing their personal opinions on things that have not been revealed by God can disagree with each other and even be wrong! Why is this concept so difficult to understand? If a Catholic leader writes a book in which he speculates or shares his personal opinion is it automatically considered binding church doctrine? For LDS that is not the case. We don’t believe our leaders are infallible.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, when you say you were not taught racism. That is a lie. There are different ways to teach: can you honestly tell me that if you are over the age of 40, you saw many black priests in your church prior to the Supreme Court ruling? If you can’t then you were being taught racism. Period.
Were you taught to call the tribes here in this country that belonged to this continent by their actual tribal names- the Iroquios, the Apache. Or were they simply some form of -ites?
 
I have to comment on LDS “Doctrine”. What is taught in LDS churches comes from a number of sources that are conveniently disavowed when challenged. The Journal of Discourses (which I have read every volume of from cover to cover) was not a book that was written to stimulate discussion. It was a compilation of talks given by LDS leaders to the church over the period of time in which the LDS church was formulating much of its doctrine. (Brigham Young and John Taylor).

Most of these adresses were given in general conference and were thus binding on the members. To say that this was just Brigham and his buddies sitting around the church speculating on spiritual what ifs is misleading at best.

Current LDS doctrine is very clear on the subject of the “prophet” speaking in general conference. It is taught that these talks by “the brethren” when documented in the Ensign (LDS monthly magazine) are equivalent to scripture. This makes sense in the LDS system as they believe that current apostles have the same authority as the apostles who wrote the new testament and the purpose (guidance from the lord to the members of the church) is the same.
 
The first presidency of the LDS church frequently issues instructions to the church that are in fact “doctrine” but are not recorded in the standard works as “scripture”. (although sometimes it has been added to the canon at a later date- for example some of the sections of the Doctrine and covenants were not included until the early 80’s)

The LDS church has consistently instructed its members to “trust in the brethren”, “follow the brethren” and sings hymns of thanks to the lord for giving them a prophet to “guide them in these latter days”. This speaks very clearly (to me at least) that the “offcial doctrine” of the LDS church is NOT sola scriptura. When an LDS prophet gives instruction to the church it is considered to be the same as if God were giving the instructions. Yes , there are examples of prophets being chastised by the Lord for a variety of reasons but never to correct their instructions to the church. (i.e. Moses, Isaiah, Etc.)
 
40.png
Casen:
Why was the tribe of Levi the only one allowed in the temple in ancient Israel? Was it because the other tribes were inferior? Perhaps racism against the other tribes? Or could there have been another reason?
Click to expand...
Why ask me what the Bible makes clear? The Levites where awarded the priesthood because of the tribes fidelitiy to Yahweh and to Moses in the episode of the golden calf. They are of the same identical semitic race of Israel (Jacob). So there is nothing racial going on here like in Mormonism. How could their be racism against the other tribes when they are the same race? Once again an argument of straw? Is their a Biblical reason for the Mormon church teaching of inferiority of the Black race? THere must be something intrinsically inferior of the black race per the Mormon interpretation of its holy texts for such racism to have a hold on its teaching until 1978. Has the white race obeyed something the black race has not? You don’t want to admit it but the Mormon text are in essence racist and teach something of this sort.
 
Let me see. The people in question with Moroni and Joseph Smith were the Lamanites. One way racism is evidenced is by the refusal to call a people by name. You know what I mean if I say we have examples with the African Americans. They go by many other names with racist intent. So, we have an angel Moroni, an angel remind you, calling the Mohawks, Iroquois, Apaches, Choctaws, Quapaws, Cherokees, and many more self evident peoples with their own cultures and customs and identities simply a bunch of Lamenites. Yes, sounds racist to me.
 
Based on many quotes from the JoD, I do believe that BY was a racist. Unfortunately, the Mormon Scriptures validate dark skin color as divine punishment for apostacizing from God (if that were the case, there wouldn’t be any white non-LDS in the world, would there??)

From the Book of Mormon:

"And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall dwindle in unbelief. And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindles in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. 1 Nephi 12:22-23

"For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." 2 Nephi 5:21

“O my bretheren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.” Jacob 3:8

“And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them.…” Alma 3:6

“And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites…” 3 Nephi 2:15

"O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white.…

From The Pearl of Great Price:

“…and there was a blackness that came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.” Moses 7:8

“And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam, save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” Moses 7:22

I know the LDS church is trying to distance itself from such absurd ideas that skin color is a merit system in God’s eyes, but the fact remains that these disturbing and un-Christian verses are still in the LDS approved Scripture. (These were taken from current printings of LDS Scripture.)
 
The last reference I quoted from the BOM in the previous post was from Mormon 9:6.
 
I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire. (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, Page 95)
Click to expand...
I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there. " (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.264)
Click to expand...
Note that every BY sermon published in the JofD or in the Times and Seasons was edited and approved by BY himself prior to publication. So according to BY, they are scripture as valid and as binding as the bible. You cannot deny this without denying the entire LDS prophetic office and priesthood heirarchy.
Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top