Issues with Brigham Young

[Suzie]

I don't understand the question. Mind clarifying what you mean for me?

Thanks,

Vanhin

Sorry, I am usually in a rush when I am online during the day. You said to Margin:

The leaders of the Church before Kimball might have been all out racists, or they might have discriminated against a specific race, but you have not made a very good case to show it.

I would like to know whether you refer to being racists with regards to the ban (theory of ban imposed due to racism) or simply racists ( their views on blacks, etc) because I think there is a lot of evidence of racist views from past Prophets, Apostles, etc so I was kind of confused at why we should have to make a case out of it since the quotes are so known and I don't know anyone who disputes that.

[Suzie]

No, I mean a more reliable source than a book that claims a friend of Lee's daughter claims that the daughter told her that her father had said something racist. That's dubious. The source you provided might be sufficient to support the notion that there was a girl who claimed such a thing, but it's not very reliable in supporting the truth of the claim that she made. A primary source, such as the daughter's journal describing the words of her father would be better.

I don't know about the second part however, in 1960 BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson kept a journal.

Brother Harold B. Lee looked at me and said in substance, "If a granddaughter of mine should ever go to the BYU and become engaged to a colored boy there I would hold you responsible." I replied in substance that he ought to hold himself responsible because he was one of the members of the Board of Trustees that permitted the present policy; that if it was not right he ought to change it. I was directed to bring it up before the entire board. The three members present were in favor of banning colored students from the BYU. This is a very serious problem on which, of course, there are obviously arguments on both sides. But surely we will have to face it squarely and resolve it.

It doesn't seem to be an issue that these Black boys couldn't hold the Priesthood ...but entirely about their race.

Five years later, Eugene England and Clifford Gledhill contributed a scholarship fund for Nigerian students but Harold B. Lee "protested vigorously over our having given a scholarship at the BYU to a negro student from Africa"and the fund was discontinued (Wilkinson Journal, 3 March 1965; Board of Trustees Minutes, 31 March 1965).

[Vanhin]

I don't know about the second part however, in 1960 BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson kept a journal.

It doesn't seem to be an issue that these Black boys couldn't hold the Priesthood ...but entirely about their race.

How can you tell?

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Sorry, I am usually in a rush when I am online during the day. You said to Margin:

No worries. Thanks for clarifying.

I would like to know whether you refer to being racists with regards to the ban (theory of ban imposed due to racism) or simply racists ( their views on blacks, etc) because I think there is a lot of evidence of racist views from past Prophets, Apostles, etc so I was kind of confused at why we should have to make a case out of it since the quotes are so known and I don't know anyone who disputes that.

I'm not arguing about whether there was racism with the past prophets, apostles, etc... I don't doubt that there are some who exhibited at least mild racism. Though, I was pointing out that the quotes MarginOfError provided didn't make the case very well, and that there are far better examples of racism in the Church than that. It appears that he was trying to find the most racist comments made by some of the individuals I mention in an earlier post, like Harold B. Lee, to counter my point that others besides Kimball prayed about the issue. However, I'm not bothered at all about Lee's opposition to integration at BYU, under the circumstances, or Kimball's opposition to inter-racial marriage. I'm certainly not concerned about Benson's (and others) disdain for Communism - which I agree with, but that is another topic. Those beliefs do not make them any less prophets to me, or any less inspired, or any less receptive to the revelations of God concerning the matter of the priesthood ban.

I am specifically saying the policy of withholding the priesthood appears to be the will of the Lord, because he allowed it for so long, and because a revelation was required to change the policy - even though other people of color deemed "non African" were allowed to receive the priesthood without specific revelation. And also because the Church has not repudiated the policy like they have other false doctrines, such as Adam-God. I'm saying what Dallin H. Oaks is saying in the following quotations that you have probably already seen while researching the topic.

...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies. (Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.)

I'm simply agreeing with him that the ban was a commandment/revelation (his words not mine), and that we do not know the reason for it.

Regards,

Vanhin

[MarginOfError]

No worries. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not arguing about whether there was racism with the past prophets, apostles, etc... I don't doubt that there are some who exhibited at least mild racism. Though, I was pointing out that the quotes MarginOfError provided didn't make the case very well, and that there are far better examples of racism in the Church than that. It appears that he was trying to find the most racist comments made by some of the individuals I mention in an earlier post, like Harold B. Lee, to counter my point that others besides Kimball prayed about the issue. However, I'm not bothered at all about Lee's opposition to integration at BYU, under the circumstances, or Kimball's opposition to inter-racial marriage. I'm certainly not concerned about Benson's (and others) disdain for Communism - which I agree with, but that is another topic. Those beliefs do not make them any less prophets to me, or any less inspired, or any less receptive to the revelations of God concerning the matter of the priesthood ban.

I am specifically saying the policy of withholding the priesthood appears to be the will of the Lord, because he allowed it for so long, and because a revelation was required to change the policy - even though other people of color deemed "non African" were allowed to receive the priesthood without specific revelation. And also because the Church has not repudiated the policy like they have other false doctrines, such as Adam-God. I'm saying what Dallin H. Oaks is saying in the following quotations that you have probably already seen while researching the topic.

...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies. (Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.)

I'm simply agreeing with him that the ban was a commandment/revelation (his words not mine), and that we do not know the reason for it.

Regards,

Vanhin

You're not agreeing with me at all. You claim was that it was plausible that it was a commandment or revelation, but that it was also plausible that it was policy motivated by racism. You fail to acknowledge that plausibility, hence cannot possibly be agreeing with me. Quite the contrary, you insist on taking any new piece of evidence and forcing it into your predetermined conclusion.

Regarding

I am specifically saying the policy of withholding the priesthood appears to be the will of the Lord, because he allowed it for so long,

I suppose then that slavery was the will of the Lord as well, since he allowed it for so long:

Judaism and slavery

[FunkyTown]

I suppose then that slavery was the will of the Lord as well, since he allowed it for so long:

Judaism and slavery

Potentially, MOE.

I understand the emotionally charged wording, of this, but it is possible. The Lord had several rules with regard to slavery:

Brush Up Your Bible: Jubilee

If the Lord could command a releasing every 49 years, could he not just as easily command a complete abolishment to slavery?

Can you think of any possible reason why slavery might exist, given the economic and social conditions of the time?

[MarginOfError]

Economic and social conditions don't shed much light on the attitude of the Lord toward slavery.

We find a softer stance on slavery from the apostles in the New Testament who exhort slave owners to treat their slaves kindly, as brothers in Christ.

In the Book of Mormon, the kings that fought against slavery are revered, and those who owned slaves or advocated slavery are cast in negative terms. All-in-all, I think it's pretty clear that the Lord doesn't approve of slavery, but is patient enough to let societies sort out their own flaws.

Joseph Smith was very much an abolitionist. He wrote at one point that slaves owned by Mormons should be brought "into a free country and set ... free—Educate them and give them equal rights." (Compilation on the Negro in Mormonism, p.40). Brigham Young had clearly different opinions.

So it's interesting the the founder of the faith is calling for equal rights, and his successor is calling for their suppression. Which one of them is right? Which one is wrong? How do we determine what is God's will and what is personally motivated?

[FunkyTown]

So it's interesting the the founder of the faith is calling for equal rights, and his successor is calling for their suppression. Which one of them is right? Which one is wrong? How do we determine what is God's will and what is personally motivated?

Very good points, Moe! I agree. It's tricky.

There are several potential answers:

1) One gave opinion and the other was inspired. Which spoke from the pulpit? Did any say 'Thus sayeth the Lord.' or somesuch on that?

2) Both were inspired, but they were given inspiration for different times - Unlikely, given how close to each other in temporal terms, but important to note as it's still a possibility.

3) One was the inspiration which was failed to be lived up to. The other was the rule when we failed to live the higher law.

There are obviously others. One could just as easily say 'Brigham was the fraud and a racist!' as you could say 'Joseph was too timid to teach the truth and never approached God to ask'. However, if one believes in the two, those three are the ones you'd want to approach first as they'd be the most likely.

[Backroads]

I suppose then that slavery was the will of the Lord as well, since he allowed it for so long:

Judaism and slavery

That is something I mean to ask about at the Second Coming. My possible controversial response: For all I know, it may have been something necessary to such-n-such times and societies and perhaps even peoples. Please keep in mind I'm very much for equal rights for everyone.

[MarginOfError]

That is something I mean to ask about at the Second Coming. My possible controversial response: For all I know, it may have been something necessary to such-n-such times and societies and perhaps even peoples. Please keep in mind I'm very much for equal rights for everyone.

You might want to check out some of the Deist philosophy. It posits that a lot more of the events and circumstances in life are creations of the actions of people than the traditional Mormon (or Christian, for that matter) likes to think--that is to say, the Deists don't believe that God micromanages the earth nor the lives of the people that live on it.

[Backroads]

You might want to check out some of the Deist philosophy. It posits that a lot more of the events and circumstances in life are creations of the actions of people than the traditional Mormon (or Christian, for that matter) likes to think--that is to say, the Deists don't believe that God micromanages the earth nor the lives of the people that live on it.

Actually, yes, I do know that part of deist philosophy. My other possibly controversial response (and the one that I more likely believe in) is that God just shrugs His shoulders and lets us do our thing. I actually am more of a believer that God is NOT a babysitter. I guess I am a bit of a deist that way.

[Suzie]

How can you tell?

Vanhin

I thought the second quote I provided within my message answered that question by itself.

[MarginOfError]

Actually, yes, I do know that part of deist philosophy. My other possibly controversial response (and the one that I more likely believe in) is that God just shrugs His shoulders and lets us do our thing. I actually am more of a believer that God is NOT a babysitter. I guess I am a bit of a deist that way.

Welcome to the club.

However, I imagine along with the shoulder shrugging, God shakes his head and weeps for a lot of the things we do.

[Suzie]

You might want to check out some of the Deist philosophy. It posits that a lot more of the events and circumstances in life are creations of the actions of people than the traditional Mormon (or Christian, for that matter) likes to think--that is to say, the Deists don't believe that God micromanages the earth nor the lives of the people that live on it.

I think people in general like to create an answer for things they don't understand or is controversial, specially in religion hence things like racism as we discussed in this thread and heck even slavery can be justified in any way or form with or without the use of scriptures. Doesn't mean that it is The truth but the truth each one feels comfortable with.

[Backroads]

Welcome to the club.

However, I imagine along with the shoulder shrugging, God shakes his head and weeps for a lot of the things we do.

Definitely. But if He stops every bad thing we do, we will never learn.

Random thought that has nothing to do with the topic but one I automatically associate with this kind of conversation: Few of us are ready for a perfect world. None of us are ready to be perfect. Most of us are at the stage that if we made ourselves a "perfect" world where nothing went wrong, we would lose so much compassion and opportunity for growth. I think God allows us that.

[Backroads]

I think people in general like to create an answer for things they don't understand or is controversial, specially in religion hence things like racism as we discussed in this thread and heck even slavery can be justified in any way or form with or without the use of scriptures. Doesn't mean that it is The truth but the truth each one feels comfortable with.

Well-said. Which is why I mean to ask about it. And ask a lot other questions.

[Suzie]

Very good points, Moe! I agree. It's tricky.

There are several potential answers:

1) One gave opinion and the other was inspired. Which spoke from the pulpit? Did any say 'Thus sayeth the Lord.' or somesuch on that?

Interesting. I thought the Church teaches that a Prophet doesn't have to say "Thus sayeth the Lord"? It's interesting because in discussions such as this, you get these kind of statements but when we are discussing something we feel comfortable with we say he doesn't have to say it (not trying to pick on you Funky eh, just saying what I observe).

[Suzie]

I can give the possibility of the Lord involvement on the ban, I am a bit surprised why others cannot give the possibility of racial motivations taking into consideration the information that has been provided and that so far no one was able to explain.

[Suzie]

My other possibly controversial response (and the one that I more likely believe in) is that God just shrugs His shoulders and lets us do our thing. I actually am more of a believer that God is NOT a babysitter. I guess I am a bit of a deist that way.

That's another thing that surprises me. Those who think that the Lord wouldn't have allowed an injustice (if the ban was racially motivated) for so long yet there are babies and kids being abused, tortured and killed as I type this, every single day without any divine intervention.

My point? God does NOT intervene in all things. It is a fact.

[FunkyTown]

Interesting. I thought the Church teaches that a Prophet doesn't have to say "Thus sayeth the Lord"? It's interesting because in discussions such as this, you get these kind of statements but when we are discussing something we feel comfortable with we say he doesn't have to say it (not trying to pick on you Funky eh, just saying what I observe).

Hahah. No, no. I agree and I certainly don't think they have to. I'm merely saying it's a tricky situation, since one prophet said one thing and the one immediately after reversed his position. I should note that there were three potential answers I saw as fitting the criteria put forth. If we're assuming that one was inspired and one was giving opinion, then we must look for some way of finding out which was which. That's part of my point when I ask if one said 'Thus sayeth the Lord'.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hahah. No, no. I agree and I certainly don't think they have to. I'm merely saying it's a tricky situation, since one prophet said one thing and the one immediately after reversed his position. I should note that there were three potential answers I saw as fitting the criteria put forth. If we're assuming that one was inspired and one was giving opinion, then we must look for some way of finding out which was which. That's part of my point when I ask if one said 'Thus sayeth the Lord'.

side note ....

In essence, "I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ...." should be sufficient too. Such as what is said in Conference talks. I think that is what is meant when the congregation responds with "Amen", we are saying "I realize what you just said was inspired".

[MarginOfError]

side note ....

In essence, "I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ...." should be sufficient too. Such as what is said in Conference talks. I think that is what is meant when the congregation responds with "Amen", we are saying "I realize what you just said was inspired".

I don't know. I've heard many many uninspired things followed up with "in the name of Jesus Christ" because that's what we do. It's almost like mormons have a complusion to end everything they say with that phrase.

Try this for an experiment sometime...Give a lesson or a thought sometime and don't end it with that phrase. Just stop talking when you're done and wait for the meeting to proceed. People look at you waiting for it. They sometimes look uncomfortable when it doesn't come.

Also, in the past few years I've made an effort to think about my responding "amen" when listening to talks. I don't say it every opportunity that's presented.

I know we're supposed to do all things in Christ's name, but I have my doubts about how seriously people have considered their words before invoking His name.

But alas, if we're going to head down this discussion, perhaps we should open a new thread.

[Vanhin]

I'm saying what Dallin H. Oaks is saying in the following quotations that you have probably already seen while researching the topic.

...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies. (Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.)

I'm simply agreeing with him that the ban was a commandment/revelation (his words not mine), and that we do not know the reason for it.

You're not agreeing with me at all.

You are right I don't agree with you. I agree with Dallin H. Oaks.

I suppose then that slavery was the will of the Lord as well, since he allowed it for so long:Judaism and slavery

I don't know whether it was his will or not. If the scriptures are our guide, then I wouldn't put it past him. However, slavery was not an institution or policy established and maintained by the Church in our dispensation, so it's hardly the same thing. Besides I don't think withholding the priesthood from certain peoples is even on par with slavery to begin with.

It doesn't seem to me that withholding the priesthood from a certain lineage is even out of character for God. To demonstrate this point I'm going to quote FAIR because they present it well. I'm sure you have seen this already, but this is for anyone who hasn't yet.

It is abundantly clear from the Bible and other scriptures that, in certain circumstances and for various reasons, God has given certain privileges and responsibilities to certain groups and withheld them (or allowed them to be withheld) from others. Examples of this include:

* God made a special covenant with Abraham, and reaffirmed it with his descendants the Israelites, beginning with Moses. While conversion to the Israelite religion was possible, it was rare, and the Lord forbade Israel from intermarrying with the surrounding foreign nations.

* Within the Israelite community itself, only the Levites were tasked with performing the ordinances of the tabernacle, and later the temple (Numbers 3:5-13; Numbers 8:5-26). With this privilege came certain sacrifices; for example, the Levites did not receive a land of inheritance when Israel took control of Canaan (Joshua 14:4).

* During Jesus' mortal ministry, he instructed his disciples to only preach to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6). It was only during the later apostolic ministry that Peter received a revelation authorizing the gospel to go to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

The last two are especially instructive, in that there is no apparent reason why non-Levite Israelites in Old Testament times and Gentiles in early New Testament times could not receive the same privileges as others. Sometimes God operates on a timetable that he chooses not to explain. (Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Deny based on race - FAIRMormon)

And we cannot forget that even though we do not know whether this applies to the priesthood ban in question or not, there was an actual lineage at some point that was denied a right to the priesthood.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; (Abr. 1:26-27)

So, whether it applies to the modern priesthood ban or not, as some have speculated, it appears that the scriptures confirm that God has banned an entire lineage from the priesthood before.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I thought the second quote I provided within my message answered that question by itself.

What, the one that said that Harold B. Lee "protested vigorously over our having given a scholarship at the BYU to a negro student from Africa"? How does that establish that his stance was more about racism than the priesthood and marriage? Is it the word "negro"? Does that make it more racist than the first quote? I don't see any new information in that quote that establishes your point.

Harold B. Lee was one of the prophets who had prayed about the lifting of the ban, having received a "not yet" answer according to the Church Historian. And also, President Lee said the following to the saints in 1972.

We are having come into the Church now many people of various nationalities. We in the Church must remember that we have a history of persecution, discrimination against our civil rights, and our constitutional privileges being withheld from us. These who are members of the Church, regardless of their color, their national origin, are members of the church and kingdom of God. Some of them have told us that they are being shunned. There are snide remarks. We are withdrawing ourselves from them in some cases.

Now we must extend the hand of fellowship to men everywhere, and to all who are truly converted and who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein. We ask the Church members to strive to emulate the example of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who gave us the new commandment that we should love one another. I wish we could remember that. (Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 384.)

I think it is more plausible that Lee was more concerned about the implications of priesthood and interracial marriages at BYU, between blacks of African descent and other members, than merely racism. Though I do not doubt that he also was as strongly against interracial marriages as Kimball was, regardless of the priesthood issue.

The reason why Lee was brought up to begin with, was as an example of the supposed racism that prevented the Church from lifting the ban earlier than 1978. However, President Kimball also felt the way Lee did about interracial marriages, yet it was during his tenure that the ban was lifted. That proves my point, that it was the Lord who allowed the ban to persist, and he wasn't necessarily waiting on racism to be completely eradicated from the Church to make His will known.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I can give the possibility of the Lord involvement on the ban, I am a bit surprised why others cannot give the possibility of racial motivations taking into consideration the information that has been provided and that so far no one was able to explain.

I'll give the possibility that the Lord works in mysterious ways. In the Book of Mormon, the racial tension between the Lamanites and the Nephites were used by the Lord to bring about His purposes in more than one occasion. Joseph Smith's tendency to believe in the supernatural were useful in helping him have enough faith for miracles to happen. Though as he matured as a prophet, the superstition was replaced by truer understanding of revelation.

Regards,

Vanhin