Issues with Brigham Young


Nathan6329
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So was this belief changed to be more socially acceptable or was it changed because it was an incorrect teaching in the first place?

Are blacks cursed at birth?

It was changed by revelation. That is, God revealed to the prophet/apostles that it is time to lift the ban. The reason for which - only God can tell you for sure. We can speculate, but nobody knows the answer other than... "God revealed it was time to lift it".

Why would you think blacks are cursed at birth? Women do not get the Priesthood either - are we cursed? Also, it was not all blacks that did not receive the Priesthood - just blacks of African descent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see what you mean, but I think other churches have acknowledged "mistakes" of a far more grave nature and still come off OK on the PR front.

Examples?

Doesn't this minimalize (sic) the way that the ban affected the Church's black membership--and (by virtue of the way the Church consequently deployed its proselytizing resources) its potential membership? If the policy does not come from God, then doesn't it actually undermine the Church's stated aims with regard to a vast segment of the population?

Minimize it? Actually, I think it does all the opposite because we're talking about a Prophet using his own personal bigotry to deprive thousands of men and women around the world from receiving specific blessings with regards to the Priesthood, Temple ordinances such as sealings that are so sacred and important in LDS theology. It means that the personal stories of brothers such as Elijah Abel and sister Jane James (I posted her story in this thread) are absolutely unjust and their desire to be sealed and get their own endowments denied based on the possible racist views of the leaders at that time. Minimize it? No way. Like them, there are THOUSANDS of these wonderful people who lived worthy lives yet they were deprived of enjoying these blessings.

I believe if we put ourselves for a minute in the shoes of these faithful people, study their stories and we don't see them just as a nice story in a magazine or book but we truly comprehend the implications of the blessings they were denied, then we will see this in a completely different fashion.

1) Why does it matter whether the ban originated with Young or Smith, if they were both prophets?

Why does it matter? Do you think it matters whether this Church is led by revelation in all issues or by a policy chosen by men depending on their own personal views? I am hoping you are not really asking this seriously.

2) Are all Church policies not specifically endorsed by canonized revelation, immediately suspect?

I believe all revelations and policies should be examined, and pray about it for confirmation. I don't think is healthy at all to just follow something out of tradition or blind obedience.

3) Other than the fact that a) it is odious to our post-civil rights sensibilities, and b) it offends some people's notions of the manner in which the gospel ought to be preached to the entire world; is there really a doctrinal case to be made against priesthood ban (as a policy per se, apart from the justifications offered on its behalf)?

What do you exactly mean by "doctrinal case against" the priesthood ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women don't get the priesthood just because the church feels they have other duties in the church so they don't get the same authority but the duties Men have don't give them any better chances of receiving salvation than women.

So we know there was a time where it may or may not have been necessary to keep blacks from receiving the priesthood, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is that Brigham Young taught that they were cursed around the time he revoked their privilages. Granted his teachings were more socially acceptable at that time then they ever would be now, however is it a teaching from God or a teaching of his own personal views?

If we really believe that blacks may be cursed we sort of contradicted some of our own teachings believing men will be punished for their own sins and not through Adam's transgression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women don't get the priesthood just because the church feels they have other duties in the church so they don't get the same authority but the duties Men have don't give them any better chances of receiving salvation than women.

So we know there was a time where it may or may not have been necessary to keep blacks from receiving the priesthood, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is that Brigham Young taught that they were cursed around the time he revoked their privilages. Granted his teachings were more socially acceptable at that time then they ever would be now, however is it a teaching from God or a teaching of his own personal views?

If we really believe that blacks may be cursed we sort of contradicted some of our own teachings believing men will be punished for their own sins and not through Adam's transgression.

This is actually based on a lot of what I read in the posts, I based this off what we know. It also initially references the above comment.

It kind of depends on what is meant by curse. We usually give it a negative connotation. A curse could just be a mark that shows a certain subject. That happened with the lamanites. Their curse just showed that they were not followers of the God. A better example would be circumcision. That showed the people were of the Abrahamic Covenant. However your choices decide whether those "curses," or "marks" have real meaning. You can choose to be faithful or not be faithful.

By all that, to be cursed would not necessarily mean that they have sins or transgressions that will keep them out of Heaven. That is the point of the second article of faith. What I do is my choice and I will be judged for that, regardless of circumstances I will be in.

For instance, "Bill" could have grown up in an abusive, environment. He carries that experience with him. He doesn't choose to break the commandments, but maybe he is a little more shy or less confident because of that experience. He has been "marked" by his situation. However it doesn't mark him as the sinner for being the recipient of an abusing situation.

Now also backing up to what was said concerning whether Brigham Young said it, or the Lord said it. I think it is the same thing as, did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon or God gave us the Book through His own means and through His power.

We read and study then we pray. We receive an answer and that is the word of the Lord directly to you.

Furthermore concerning the reasons and possibilities for the ban. We don't know(as has been stated many times). The question of "why" can be asked for everything. Even when you have the answer you can still ask why. many a child knows this:D. Speculation(moving from possibility to possibility of why something occured, when the matter is trivial or unimportant to our salvation.) is not helpful either. When we don't know, we simply don't know. No amount of studying will bring us the answer(in this life unless otherwise given by God through his divinely appointed servants). However, it is healthy to question as that allows us to seek for answers and receive them from God Himself. With those answers our testimonies will grow.

With that point, the doctrines of the church are taught to bring us these answers more often and more readily and more powerfully. Therefore they will benefit and change our lives for the better. This is why we teach about the Atonement and faith, repentance, and baptism so often. It is because we will truly grow from studying these things. The speculative things we can study, and occasionally have a good experience. we can have our mind expanded and it can be a humbling experience to know and realize that we don't know, and we can and will trust God that He knows and He isn't burdening us with knowledge that will be useless to us on this earth-life. However we should not allow the speculation studies to become the focus of our life or a great portion of where we spend our energies.

I hope this was helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted his teachings were more socially acceptable at that time then they ever would be now, however is it a teaching from God or a teaching of his own personal views?

Is there a reason you keep insisting that we spoon-feed you the answer rather than taking this to the Lord yourself?

If we really believe that blacks may be cursed we sort of contradicted some of our own teachings believing men will be punished for their own sins and not through Adam's transgression.

Granting Brigham Young's teachings for a moment (which is certainly arguable) - have we ever taught that people are temporally immune from the consequences of other people's choices?

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suzie, I realize you're taking a break, so no rush to respond to these. Hope you're doing well.

Examples?

Exhibit A.

Also, e.g., the LDS Church's posthumous reinstatement of Helmuth Hubener's membership.

Minimize it? Actually, I think it does all the opposite because we're talking about a Prophet using his own personal bigotry to deprive thousands of men and women around the world from receiving specific blessings with regards to the Priesthood, Temple ordinances such as sealings that are so sacred and important in LDS theology. It means that the personal stories of brothers such as Elijah Abel and sister Jane James (I posted her story in this thread) are absolutely unjust and their desire to be sealed and get their own endowments denied based on the possible racist views of the leaders at that time. Minimize it? No way. Like them, there are THOUSANDS of these wonderful people who lived worthy lives yet they were deprived of enjoying these blessings.

Yes, I think that accepting the black priesthood ban as spurious while simultaneously asserting that God won't lead the Church "astray" in any material and substantial sense, pretty much minimalizes (yes, it is a word ;) ) the experience of black Mormons.

I believe if we put ourselves for a minute in the shoes of these faithful people, study their stories and we don't see them just as a nice story in a magazine or book but we truly comprehend the implications of the blessings they were denied, then we will see this in a completely different fashion.

If we had written records of one John Q. Reubenite living in Israel in 800 BC who desperately wanted the priesthood as it existed at that time and in all other respects lived an exemplary life - would that change your perception of Moses' Levites-only priesthood policy?

Anecdotes like the ones you provide are inspiring and powerful; but I'm not sure they're really germane to the bottom-line question of whether the priesthood ban came from the Lord or not.

Why does it matter? Do you think it matters whether this Church is led by revelation in all issues or by a policy chosen by men depending on their own personal views? I am hoping you are not really asking this seriously.

I agree that it matters whether the ban came by revelation/inspiration/whatever other processes go into the day-to-day decisions of the church leadership.

I'm just not convinced that it matters which leader received that particular (alleged) revelation. I worry that this "it was Brigham, not Joseph" (and the other side's "no, it was really Joseph") betray a "Joseph Smith was a 'more reliable' prophet than Brigham Young" mentality that I think is unhealthy.

I believe all revelations and policies should be examined, and pray about it for confirmation. I don't think is healthy at all to just follow something out of tradition or blind obedience.

Agreed.

On the other hand--do we subject, say, the decision to build more small temples, or the establishment of the Perpetual Education Fund, to the same kind of scrutiny that we apply to the priesthood ban issue?

Why, or why not?

Oh, and by the way - what leads you to imply that those who disagree with you on this, are the ones who have not sought/obtained a confirmation on this matter?

What do you exactly mean by "doctrinal case against" the priesthood ban?

I guess what I'm driving at is, can you cite canonized revelation/Church doctrine to argue that such a ban would never really have come from the Lord?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women don't get the priesthood just because the church feels they have other duties in the church so they don't get the same authority but the duties Men have don't give them any better chances of receiving salvation than women.

So we know there was a time where it may or may not have been necessary to keep blacks from receiving the priesthood, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is that Brigham Young taught that they were cursed around the time he revoked their privilages. Granted his teachings were more socially acceptable at that time then they ever would be now, however is it a teaching from God or a teaching of his own personal views?

If we really believe that blacks may be cursed we sort of contradicted some of our own teachings believing men will be punished for their own sins and not through Adam's transgression.

Not really:eek:

Now understand.

I am not promoting the teaching:o

It is a far cry from -punishing blacks for something Adam did compared with starting an individual a little behind the mark for ending somewhere before the mark in the pre-Earth life.

Now don't come stompin' me for the teachin'

I received over 40 years ago now. OK?:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it just seems to me a lot of teachings they interpreted from the Book of Mormon were based on their personal feelings at the time and not words of the lord.

So does that mean if a black and white couple conceive a half-white child then he is half-cursed?

There are many other cultures in the world that have different shades of skin, so does that mean the darker they are the more cursed they are?

I guess we are a step behind Chinese people then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it just seems to me a lot of teachings they interpreted from the Book of Mormon were based on their personal feelings at the time and not words of the lord.

So does that mean if a black and white couple conceive a half-white child then he is half-cursed?

There are many other cultures in the world that have different shades of skin, so does that mean the darker they are the more cursed they are?

I guess we are a step behind Chinese people then.

I assume we had it all worked out:huh:

I did not pay a whole lot of attention to it (like a lot of others)

I just assumed the teachings were correct.

I do remember quizzing the Bishop a lot when I first learned of it but as He and a few others answered my questions and my understanding of our pre-Earth life grew I let it slide.

I was relieved but confused when the ban lifted I remember.:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem that there was one a practice of polygamy because it was condoned in the Bible and it was banned in 1890 right around the time where it was made illegal and just before the time unwed women became more acceptable to society. I don't have a problem that some of the past prophets of the 1800s were a little racist because society was brainwashed at the time, but I do however have a problem with saying God has cursed people and labeled them with dark skin at birth according to their culture. All cultural backgrounds have either their own shade of skin or unique facial characteristics. I have defended many times saying there is a fine line between doctrine and sermon but the fact that many LDS Members are still defending the sermons saying blacks are the seed of cain and have a curse laid upon them is one of the things that keep people away from this religion and although the ban was lifted it still isn't necessarily a teaching that has been done away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem that there was one a practice of polygamy because it was condoned in the Bible and it was banned in 1890 right around the time where it was made illegal and just before the time unwed women became more acceptable to society. I don't have a problem that some of the past prophets of the 1800s were a little racist because society was brainwashed at the time, but I do however have a problem with saying God has cursed people and labeled them with dark skin at birth according to their culture. All cultural backgrounds have either their own shade of skin or unique facial characteristics. I have defended many times saying there is a fine line between doctrine and sermon but the fact that many LDS Members are still defending the sermons saying blacks are the seed of cain and have a curse laid upon them is one of the things that keep people away from this religion and although the ban was lifted it still isn't necessarily a teaching that has been done away with.

I do not wish to return to the old teaching that

"African Blacks cannot hold the priest hood at this time."

I am happy the exercise of priesthood by all worthy males and blessings of personal

attendance in the Temple are now available to all worthy members of the Church. :cool:

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not wish to return to the old teaching that

"African Blacks cannot hold the priest hood at this time."

I am happy the exercise of priesthood by all worthy males and blessings of personal

attendance in the Temple are now available to all worthy members of the Church. :cool:

That isn't what I'm talking about though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the "policy" originate by revelation? Dunno...probably. God seems to have a pattern of doing things like this...or maybe people excuse themselves by blaming God in Holy writ?

Only the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood....what about the other 11 tribes? Or the rest of the world for that matter.

Deuteronomy is rather telling"

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

Oh and I imagine the Jews were taken aback when Peter was told to take the Gospel to ....THE GENTILES :eek:

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do we or do we not believe blacks are cursed like this video says here?

YouTube - A Mormon Explaining How Blacks are Cursed

Some do some don't. Brigham young thought so (or something kind of like that). We don't really have anything that confirms or denies it... that and then it gets complicated because its not all blacks just ones that descend from a certain line, if you get into the discussions on it. Theres nothing in the scripture that implicitly says so.

If they were cursed it won't affect their opportunities in the afterlife, and as the priesthood is available to all worthy males now, so it's a bit of a dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, Bruce R. McConkie retracted what he had said previously:

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LDS_Guy_1986

I just want to say that I am an LDS Member so this isn't an anti-Mormon comment trying to drive people away from the religion.

The only problem I have is that something is out of place with the teachings of Brigham Young. Shortly after he took leadership he revoked all the priesthood blessings of the Black members in the church and he also revoked the temple rights for all the members. He also had taught against mixed marriages. What bothers me is that I have been a member of the LDS Church for 13 years and I still believe that Brigham Young failed as a prophet and there were also rumors that he was involved in a massacre.

I understand that a lot of what him and other prophets said could be considered questionable, but the fact is that he approved of the writings of the Journal of Disclosures and helped along with the sale of them once they were written.

What I think is that Brigham Young is at fault for many of the Anti-Mormons that are out there because he put the church through a period of corruptness which hadn't been brought back into balance until years later when polygamy was ended and then until we had not used race as a reason to deny someone the same blessings.

It's important to remember that Prophets are still just men, Brigham Young's teachings are racist at times, but many men were racist at this time. Prophets sin, they can have opinions that are not 100% reverent or scriptural, they will make mistakes. They are still the chosen leader of the Church unless God has them removed like President Wilson taught us.

God allowed thee priesthood changes to occur through Brigham Young's leadership. If God didn't have a plan for this (one that is unknown to us all) then he would of revealed that Young was to be removed as Prophet (or even called him to the spirit world) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would of called a new Prophet in his stead.

The best example of Prophets who do very terrible things but are still prophets of God is King David.

King David was a prophet who killed many people some justly others not so much. David was also a adulterer. While a soldier of his was off at war he had an affair with his wife and she conceived the Kings illegitimate son.

In an attempt to cover it up he had his General send the husband to report to Jerusalem hoping that he would visit the marital bed with a night home from the front.

The man didn't saying he would feel wrong to know his wife when his men were fighting and dying (a true leader and warrior!). David discretely keeps him a few more days and tries to entice him to sleep with his wife by getting him drunk to no avail.

His wicked plot a failure he orders the General to betray the brave solider in battle and leave him to the enemy to die at there sword in battle.

The General send his entire platoon on a suicide mission to attack an enemy city walls and dozens die (including the married soldier).

Here is a prophet who commits adultery, lies, tries to cover up the affair, then orders the murder of the husband so he can marry his mistress and save face.

God rebukes David for this David falls from his glory but the Lord still uses David as a King and Prophet despite his wicked sin. Not only that but his mistress is the mother of the next King of Israel Solomon!

So while Brigham Young's actions are not moral in today standards and he will have to answer for them before Christ on Judgement Day it doesn't remove his prophetic mantle unless God calls for it to be removed, once more the only perfect prophet was Christ all others were sinners who God worked through.

P.S

Personally I do not believe Young has any involvement in the Mountains Meadows Massacre.

If he did have a direct role then he is in violation of the covenant we make to not murder when we join the church found in (See D&C 42:18). This would would most definitely of had huge repercussions throughout the LDS Church for a Prophet to commit and unforgivable sin.

Like I said though the claims against Young's involvement in the MMM is very weak (and I highly doubt they are true) and they are only seen as valid by Anti-Mormons who have usually will take anything they can to try and make the LDS Church look bad and use it regardless of how untrue it is.

I hope my answer helped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also important to know that virtually every Christian church believed in the "curse of Cain." It was not a uniquely Mormon belief.

We weren't going to accept the idea, but then someone mumbled something about Mormons not being Christian and we figured we'd better jump on the bandwagon . . . :satan:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share