Issues with Brigham Young

[Guest]

I don't think is a matter of being offended. It's very easy to mention that this happened so many years ago, that it was probably "policy", etc (we are indirectly trying to brush it off), the only thing we are lacking is saying we should forget about it and move on (no wonder the Jews get so upset when people try that same reasoning with regards to the Holocaust).

However, for me (and I am aware it's probably just ME) I try to imagine what these Saints went through, I studied their lives, I studied the context of the whole issue and I have lots of questions. As an "eternal" student that I consider myself to be, I continue seeking for answers (this is just one of those topics).

That's what I'm trying to tell say, Suzie. Who are we to say that the Holy Ghost guided the prophets BY MISTAKE? It is not a matter of being offended, it is not a matter of saying "forget it"... it is a matter of having FAITH that the prophets are following the guidance of the Holy Ghost to know what works best for the church at the time that they were chosen by God as the leaders for the church.

It may not make sense to us now, but I trust that the Holy Ghost had a reason for it. Just like there was a reason why the Holy Ghost guided me to embrace Catholicism before I became LDS. It may not make sense to you, but it makes complete sense to me after gaining a testimony why the Holy Ghost gave me that path to follow.

Either that, or you throw away your faith that the prophet is a man led by the Spirit to direct this church.

[Suzie]

That's what I'm trying to tell say, Suzie. Who are we to say that the Holy Ghost guided the prophets BY MISTAKE? It is not a matter of being offended, it is not a matter of saying "forget it"... it is a matter of having FAITH that the prophets are following the guidance of the Holy Ghost to know what works best for the church at the time that they were chosen by God as the leaders for the church.

Well, the whole issue of faith on a man is a completely different topic. However, I understand what you are saying. I do not have really an opinion (yet) on whether or not it was a "mistake" because I believe that if the ban was not a revelation from God, then President Young did it as a direct consequence of William McCary's actions and that's kind of sinister to imagine (in a way).

Again like I said, I continue studying and researching. However, even though I feel quite passionate about the topic (as MANY others) it is not something that makes me lose any sleep at night, I have enough stress in my life (long story) that causes me to lose sleep, however I love Church history and a good debate. :)

[Gramajane]

I understand that unless you provide the full source for something that you are concerned about-- you don't give anyone a way to help you.

--- From my MEMORY (it isn't perfect :/)

It was ***Joseph Smith*** that had given a black brother the priesthood, and then received a revelation from God that was not to be done AT THIS TIME, but in the future they would have all those blessings. So Joseph Smith had to go and ask the brother not to use his priesthood.

---- It has in the past been an interesting wonder to me why God would do that-

I knew that in Bible times, it was only certain tribes that had the priesthood, so your lineage DID count, but- why in the latter-days was it still necessary?

--- I studied quite a bit on it, and finally came to my OWN reasoning-

THIS IS NOT GOSPEL DOCTRINE--This is ME- reasoning.

So, I asked myself to go to the source a bit- and read all I could,

and I could let God be the decider but I STILL wondered,

remember I'm a grandma, so I was a member for years before Pres. Kimball had his revelation :)

-- then I got to thinking about what does the Elders quorum DO--

(besides give priesthood blessings to heal the sick (and they could heal ANYBODY with faith enough)

and of course the temple blessings (and that work can be done for the dead, so all those who at this time had to wait, they didn't have to wait as long as those from centuries back?)---

but then I thought about what my husband DID-

-- they SERVED people, --- they chopped wood, shoveled gravel, painted houses, and moved people in and out!

--- The members who had been (or were?) slaves had/were already being FORCED to do that!

They could have felt totally USED, to be asked to do MORE! It was time WE served THEM! :)

--- Right on! Now that made and makes sense to me :)

I'm so pleased to have also found in my studies that LDS have ALL ALONG had ALL nationalities worshiping together in the same chapels, in the same benches, etc! (well, when there is a language challenge, then sometimes they have special wards for those LANGUAGES, but they also work to teach English (or other languages and reading and writing etc) as needed asap. :)

I wish I could easily find the sources I used in that study years ago, so I could supply them for you. I think you could probably get some clarity on it from F.A.I.R. online.

Even in the VERY front of the Journal of Discourses (my set is three flights upstairs in this old house or I'd go check it for sure) -- or it might have been in an Ensign article? -- or both? I seem to remember it telling HOW the Journal of D. was gathered. It was mostly by a man trying to write down what was being said, AS it was being said in mostly regular sacrament meetings! I think he had taught himself an early form of shorthand? Some though was from peoples journals-- but anyway- the people who supposedly SAID the things, didn't get to check for accuracy

--- Also it is because they were so SOO hungry for the teachings and didn't have any church magazines or Rel Soc or Priesthood Manuals etc etc! So they did the best they could.

The JofD has NOT been canonized (as have the standard works, B. BofM. Doc&Cov, Pearl of G. P) which are the authorized sources.

Anyway- I hope that helps anyone who might wonder as I did. I actually think wondering and going to the SOURCES is the best thing to do. I'm SOOOOO glad that the church has got so much available for any member (or member of another faith etc) to check out without having to buy a JofD as I did, as SO MANY anti were quoting it (and they even didn't quote it accurately! )

So, bottom line-- I think it is hearsay (sp) to not get the source, and be sure that it is an ACCURATE source. Along with what others said about judging others by todays standards is likely to be skewed.

(--- Hey- they used to only get one bath a week --- IF--- that! Did they even HAVE toothbrushes? )

[Traveler]

It is within the understanding of LDS that when Moses first came off the Mountain that the law given on the plates that were smashed were different from the law given on the plates when he returned the second time. It is believed that the second law was given because the Israelites were not ready to live a higher law.

We may speculate that the early saints were not ready to live under the covenant of the priesthood that would allow Blacks to hold the priesthood - we may speculate other things. Many may study this and think they are learning something. Seldom does the L-rd tell us why he does or commands anything. In general we live by faith. There are some that think they must have answers - I am sure that some day we all will know. But until there is knowledge it is far better to live by faith than by speculation.

The truth is that there is no official declaration as to why Blacks for a time did not hold the priesthood. Thus it is that we do not know and still do not know. I have speculated and believe through faith that often the reason we are not given full disclosure of some things is because many would act overly prejudice towards those that we think worthy only of lesser laws and covenants. As we have seen on this thread, some have judged Brigham Young through prejudicial eyes, to be a “lesser” prophet or unworthy to govern the saints as the saints of his era would be governed under the will of G-d.

The time of ignorance concerning Blacks and the Priesthood has ended and now we are commanded to repent (change our view and our hearts) of things past and fully accept that we live in a time and generation when the blessings and covenants of the priesthood are extended to all men that seek to serve G-d in righteousness. I would also point out that never at any time was there ever a doctrine that Blacks could not be resurrected to all blessings of the Celestial Kingdom. Never was there any teaching among the LDS that Blacks could not receive eternal exaltation.

There is no reason to pity anyone living humbly and righteously during a trial. There is no reason to think that because someone’s trials are different than ours; that they deserve lesser blessings. There is no reason to judge Blacks as being lesser humans any more than it is G-d’s will to judge Brigham Young as a lesser prophet both are fuel for the fires of prejudice.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

I've often heard it said the ban could have been lifted much earlier if someone had bothered to maybe ask God...

[Traveler]

I've often heard it said the ban could have been lifted much earlier if someone had bothered to maybe ask God...

Not true - Spencer W. Kimball stated that it was not the first time he or the brothern had asked that Blacks recieve the priesthood.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Not true - Spencer W. Kimball stated that it was not the first time he or the brothern had asked that Blacks recieve the priesthood.

The Traveler

Really?

Thanks for the info.

[MarginOfError]

I've often heard it said the ban could have been lifted much earlier if someone had bothered to maybe ask God...

Not true - Spencer W. Kimball stated that it was not the first time he or the brothern had asked that Blacks recieve the priesthood.

The Traveler

In fact, Hugh B. Brown was a big advocate of the idea in the 1940's. But asking the question wasn't quite enough. By that time, the Church had developed a practice of not changing significant policies without the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. I believe it was pointed out somewhere that the day the policy was voted out of practice was a day that the two most outspoken opponents of changing the policy weren't at the Quorum meeting.

[Traveler]

In fact, Hugh B. Brown was a big advocate of the idea in the 1940's. But asking the question wasn't quite enough. By that time, the Church had developed a practice of not changing significant policies without the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. I believe it was pointed out somewhere that the day the policy was voted out of practice was a day that the two most outspoken opponents of changing the policy weren't at the Quorum meeting.

You are correct about Hugh B. Brown. I knew him personally and he said the same directly to me in the early 60's. I have also personally and privately talked to an apostle that was present when the revelation was given. As he described to me the events (which I was told not to speak of publically but to record in my journal) that I doubt that anyone, in light of the revelation given, could have possibly voted otherwise and maintained their membership or any covenant with G-d.

The Traveler

[LDSChristian]

My problem with people that talk about how Brigham Young taught of black people is this: think of the era that was in. The entire country didn't like black people at that time. It was still illegal for blacks to go to church in some areas. Thomas Jefferson had over 600 slaves.

[MarginOfError]

My problem with people that talk about how Brigham Young taught of black people is this: think of the era that was in. ... Thomas Jefferson had over 600 slaves.

Not in 1840 he didn't.

[Madriglace]

Line upon line, precept upon precept. The Lord gives His prophets instructions as the Church needs it. Most have come as a direct request concerning an existing or upcoming problem (Family Home Evening for example).

I have always looked at the issue of the blacks not being able to hold the priesthood until the 1970's as similar to the Founding Fathers leaving slavery as a States Rights Issue. That Constitution had to be signed ... it was paving the way for the restoration of the gospel ... God had a hand in it ... if you don't think so read George Washington's journals.

As has been stated before .... the state of the country has to be taken into consideration. The work had to roll forward and the Lord uses the existing conditions to get His work done. I wish I could remember where I read it but I recall a black brother saying that when the revelation came the blacks would be ready ... and look at the growth of the church in Africa.

But really ... polygamy and blacks not holding the priesthood is a non-issue ... it's over and done. If this is a stumbling block for someone's progression ... it is just heart breaking.

Brigham Young was who the Lord needed at that time to move the work along. Yes he was abbrasive and told it like it was, he had to be. Without a person of this kind the church would have been in a world of hurt after Joseph Smith was killed. Who else could have picked up the reins and move so many people across the country and built a new city and made it prosper? There is alot to be said for compassion but this situation called for a hard nosed leader .... if I had been there I probably would have sat down the first day out. Even if he was a prophet he still had his free agency to make his own choices ... he wasn't perfect ... but as a prophet speaking for the church it was what the Lord said or he wouldn't have been there.

[spamlds]

Brigham Young was a prophet of God every bit as much as Joseph Smith was a prophet and every bit as much as Thomas S. Monson is a prophet. He did a mighty work in saving the Lord's Church from annihilation at the hands of the Gentiles. The power of the Lord rested upon him. He was a powerful witness of Jesus Christ and perhaps was the most devoted supporter of Joseph.

History written by the unconverted always omits the power that was upon the man. You should consider getting the manual that we studied about the life of President Young. It was the first in the series of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals. Here's a link to the online version of it.

LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Table of Contents - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young

It would be a good idea to balance what you've learned from secular and anti-Mormon sources. The bad guys will always vilify the great and noble ones. Brother Brigham was one of the good guys.

[MarginOfError]

Brigham Young was a prophet of God every bit as much as Joseph Smith was a prophet and every bit as much as Thomas S. Monson is a prophet. He did a mighty work in saving the Lord's Church from annihilation at the hands of the Gentiles. The power of the Lord rested upon him. He was a powerful witness of Jesus Christ and perhaps was the most devoted supporter of Joseph.

History written by the unconverted always omits the power that was upon the man. You should consider getting the manual that we studied about the life of President Young. It was the first in the series of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals. Here's a link to the online version of it.

LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Table of Contents - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young

It would be a good idea to balance what you've learned from secular and anti-Mormon sources. The bad guys will always vilify the great and noble ones. Brother Brigham was one of the good guys.

Does being 'one of the good guys' in the mid 1800's make a person immune to making decisions based on personal bigotry?

[LDSChristian]

Line upon line, precept upon precept. The Lord gives His prophets instructions as the Church needs it. Most have come as a direct request concerning an existing or upcoming problem (Family Home Evening for example).

I have always looked at the issue of the blacks not being able to hold the priesthood until the 1970's as similar to the Founding Fathers leaving slavery as a States Rights Issue. That Constitution had to be signed ... it was paving the way for the restoration of the gospel ... God had a hand in it ... if you don't think so read George Washington's journals.

As has been stated before .... the state of the country has to be taken into consideration. The work had to roll forward and the Lord uses the existing conditions to get His work done. I wish I could remember where I read it but I recall a black brother saying that when the revelation came the blacks would be ready ... and look at the growth of the church in Africa.

But really ... polygamy and blacks not holding the priesthood is a non-issue ... it's over and done. If this is a stumbling block for someone's progression ... it is just heart breaking.

Brigham Young was who the Lord needed at that time to move the work along. Yes he was abbrasive and told it like it was, he had to be. Without a person of this kind the church would have been in a world of hurt after Joseph Smith was killed. Who else could have picked up the reins and move so many people across the country and built a new city and made it prosper? There is alot to be said for compassion but this situation called for a hard nosed leader .... if I had been there I probably would have sat down the first day out. Even if he was a prophet he still had his free agency to make his own choices ... he wasn't perfect ... but as a prophet speaking for the church it was what the Lord said or he wouldn't have been there.

Agreed. Also, if having more than one wife discounts someone as being a prophet of God then that would also throw out people like Abraham and David, the David that's technically an earthly ancestor (because of Mary) to Christ. If it was wrong God would have said or done something to them. Also, the Bible even mentions slavery. God doesn't change, it's the time that changes.

[Guest]

Does being 'one of the good guys' in the mid 1800's make a person immune to making decisions based on personal bigotry?

Of course not. If we're talking about him as a person. But when we're talking about him as a prophet leading the church, then you're gonna have to call the Holy Ghost the bigot. Unless you don't believe that prophets make church policy with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

[LDSChristian]

Of course not. If we're talking about him as a person. But when we're talking about him as a prophet leading the church, then you're gonna have to call the Holy Ghost the bigot. Unless you don't believe that prophets make church policy with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

But the only thing is a prophet of God is still human so they're not free from making mistakes by any means. Why do you think Johan was mad at God? He made a prophecy that actually didn't come true and was angry at God because it made him look like a liar.

[Guest]

But the only thing is a prophet of God is still human so they're not free from making mistakes by any means. Why do you think Johan was mad at God? He made a prophecy that actually didn't come true and was angry at God because it made him look like a liar.

Sure. But a policy about the administration of Priesthood power or about Marriage? You really think that is something the Lord will leave to "personal bigotry" without divine intervention?

[Backroads]

Unless you don't believe that prophets make church policy with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

So where is the difference between "guidance" and making an intellectual decision?

[HiJolly]

So where is the difference between "guidance" and making an intellectual decision?

There's a whole bunch of us, Brigham Young and Thomas S. Monson included, that would love to have that question definitively answered!

@Anatess: " But a policy about the administration of Priesthood power or about Marriage? You really think that is something the Lord will leave to "personal bigotry" without divine intervention?"

Yep, it looks that way to me.

HiJolly

[MarginOfError]

Sure. But a policy about the administration of Priesthood power or about Marriage? You really think that is something the Lord will leave to "personal bigotry" without divine intervention?

Sure, why not? Have you seen the policies the Church has regarding scouting in the US?

I have no problem believing that well meaning priesthood leaders are allowed to implement policies that they think make sense, even if they don't to the Lord. I have no problem believing this because the Lord doesn't command us in all things...he leaves it for us to try things, experiment, and make the best decisions we can with the information we have.

Would I condemn Young for making a priesthood policy based on personal bigotry? That isn't my place. All I know is he will reap the reward of his actions, be they right or wrong. I mere state that it's plausible his own racial biases may have influenced the policy.

[Guest]

Sure, why not? Have you seen the policies the Church has regarding scouting in the US?

I have no problem believing that well meaning priesthood leaders are allowed to implement policies that they think make sense, even if they don't to the Lord. I have no problem believing this because the Lord doesn't command us in all things...he leaves it for us to try things, experiment, and make the best decisions we can with the information we have.

Would I condemn Young for making a priesthood policy based on personal bigotry? That isn't my place. All I know is he will reap the reward of his actions, be they right or wrong. I mere state that it's plausible his own racial biases may have influenced the policy.

MOE, I am disturbed by the "ala carte" manner that you put Faith in the prophets. Priesthood authority is a keystone in the LDS faith. This is not something you can "leave for us to try out". Especially since there has been several prophets sustaining the policy for over a century.

[Vanhin]

I think racial bias (racial favoritism) is a very unlikely reason for the ban, considering the fact that the only people affected by the ban were blacks of African decent (Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood - FAIRMormon). I make this point every time the discussion comes up.

Blacks and people of color from other lineages were not banned from the priesthood. This includes Australian aborigines and some people from Southern India, who can be "blacker" in skin color than Africans. They were allowed to receive the priesthood and participate in all ordinances.

Also, racial bias is unlikely precisely for the reason I mentioned in an earlier post, God allowed the practice until the revelation in 1978. It was His will, as far as I am concerned, we just don't know the reason for it.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 13, 2011 by Vanhin

[pam]

until the revelation in 1976

1978

[Vanhin]

1978

Oops. Indeed.