Issues with Brigham Young

[Suzie]

We certainly can stop the folklore, but it still doesn't make people happy. No point in worrying too much over it.

I don't think it's a matter of worrying but a matter of awareness. We do not stop talking about the Holocaust because there is nothing we can do to change it (I know the example seems extreme) but the point I am trying to illustrate is awareness and information helps us to understand some of these things. In my opinion, this issue illustrates perfectly the fact that prophets may teach things that may not be according to the Spirit or doctrinal and that's why it is so important for us to get a confirmation of whatever doctrine or teaching we may receive.

[Backroads]

I don't think it's a matter of worrying but a matter of awareness. We do not stop talking about the Holocaust because there is nothing we can do to change it (I know the example seems extreme) but the point I am trying to illustrate is awareness and information helps us to understand some of these things. In my opinion, this issue illustrates perfectly the fact that prophets may teach things that may not be according to the Spirit or doctrinal and that's why it is so important for us to get a confirmation of whatever doctrine or teaching we may receive.

Oh! I see what you're saying. I guess I just kept reading that you were using this information to please people, which bugs me because it's impossible.

Thank-you.

[Vanhin]

By the same token, we shouldn't perpetuate the notion that the priesthood ban was a mistake. That notion is not substantiated by even Elder Holland's remarks. Elder Holland's point is that we do not know the "reason" for the ban, and that any attempts to give reason are futile, since God has not given a reason. He suggests that it would have been better for the saints to simply accept the policy on faith, like other religious matters (such as the word of wisdom).

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time.

Also, Elder Holland does not completely close the door on some of the speculation. For example, in the following quote he says we must not teach certain things until we know more about them

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

Regards,

Vanhin

[mrmarklin]

What I'm saying about Brigham Young is that I understand he had weaknesses just like us, but some of his success as one of our leaders can definitely be considered questionable consider his personal views got the best of him in his religious teachings which may have caused a lot of members relationship with the lord to be hindered. The problem is I am just up in the air about Brigham Young because it isn't only the fact that he believed what he did, it is the fact that he revoked many blessings of the black members of our church. We claim not to believe in original sin because we don't think we should be responsible for the actions of others, but yet he preached that blacks were responsible for the actions of Cain, if I'm not mistaken. I'm asking here because I am basically tired of having to have this conversation with everyone who is opposed to our religion.

My understanding is that Brigham Young did not revoke any priesthood that had previously been granted to black members of the church. But it was revealed to him that in the future black people were not in the future to receive the priesthood. This was church doctrine until 1978.

A black priesthood holder died on a mission to Canada after the saints had migrated to Utah (I don't recall his name). So privileges were not revoked AFAIK.

Blacks were never responsible for the actions of Cain, but rather were descendents of Cain and could not hold the priesthood. Apparently this doctrine was ancient, but imperfectly understood by Joseph Smith, under whose tutelage black members obtained the priesthood.

Edited January 12, 2011 by mrmarklin

[mrmarklin]

I think it's a bit ludicrous to try to explain/justify what Brigham Young stated and whether or not he said it and whether or not he was just sharing his "opinion". Point blank is that he said it. That's a fact and that's part of the "freckles" in Church history Pres. Hinckley referred to (and we have many).

I discussed this issue ad nauseam with many members of the Church and with Darius Gray who sent me some copies of the DVD's he was producing with Margaret. I think they did a terrific job in trying to put things into perspective and a must see for those interested in the topic.

I think Elder Holland gives some interesting points in the PBS interview:

Frankly I'm a little dissappointed by the answer Elder Holland gives in your quotation. I grew up in the church at a time when this ban was very much in place, and a lot of speeches were given by the General Authorities about why the priesthood ban was in place. While not necessarily hard scriptural doctrine, I find it disingenuous of Holland to not posit some possible reasons of why the ban was in place. Sorry, but "I wasn't there" and "it was a long time ago", just don't cut it IMHO.

In the best of my recollection it was in place because of the "curse" of Cain and his descendants. And that they were not allowed to hold the priesthood. This may or may not have had anything to do with pre-mortal councils. I agree that no hard fast doctrine was given on that point. But at the time it was crystal clear that descendants of Cain could not hold the priesthood.

Edited January 12, 2011 by mrmarklin

[Just_A_Guy]

The key, in my mind, isn't to focus on what Brigham did wrong, but to focus on what he did right and ask whether there was anyone else who could have done it better. The Lord doesn't call perfect people--because there aren't any. He calls those who are capable of doing what is necessary under the exigencies of the moment.

In 1844-46, the Lord needed someone who could a) gather the Saints, b) get them West more or less safely, and c) establish multiple economically viable colonies throughout the intermountain west--all in the face of an openly hostile federal government. Some, like Sidney Rigdon, accomplished a) to some degree but didn't even try to go any further. Others, like Lyman Wight and James Strang, tried to set up colonies of their followers but failed spectacularly. Those who materialized later on--Joseph Smith III, for example--more or less dodged government persecution only because they were willing to abandon those of Joseph Smith's teachings that the government found most contemptible.

Love him or hate him--Brigham Young was able to do what the Lord needed done, and he was probably the only one in the Church at that time who could have done it.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Elphaba]

But it was revealed to him that in the future black people were not in the future to receive the priesthood.

When was this revealed to him?

Elphaba

[Gwen]

ok jag, i said all of that back on pg 1 and you get 4 "thanks" for it? i'm gonna "thank" you just so i can "un-thank" you. bunch of sexist mormons.... just cause a man said it... oh wow... whatever.

[Suzie]

Elder Holland's point is that we do not know the "reason" for the ban, and that any attempts to give reason are futile, since God has not given a reason. He suggests that it would have been better for the saints to simply accept the policy on faith, like other religious matters (such as the word of wisdom).

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time.

Actually, he is referring to the Church leaders trying to give a reason for the ban, not to the Saints as a congregated body or maybe I missed something?

[Suzie]

. But it was revealed to him that in the future black people were not in the future to receive the priesthood. This was church doctrine until 1978.

Taking into consideration that some black members of the Church were giving the Priesthood (in at least one case by Joseph Smith himself), if Brigham Young indeed received that revelation of banning them from the Priesthood, where is it recorded and how come the revelation was not put to vote in general conference? (common consent).

[Suzie]

I am very aware that many leaders (past and modern) talked about a revelation however where is the substantiation of it? I think that's my main point.

[Just_A_Guy]

ok jag, i said all of that back on pg 1 and you get 4 "thanks" for it? i'm gonna "thank" you just so i can "un-thank" you. bunch of sexist mormons.... just cause a man said it... oh wow... whatever.

Some of us (myself included) are just too lazy to read the whole thread. But I've thanked you twice in this thread now--does that count?

[mrmarklin]

Taking into consideration that some black members of the Church were giving the Priesthood (in at least one case by Joseph Smith himself), if Brigham Young indeed received that revelation of banning them from the Priesthood, where is it recorded and how come the revelation was not put to vote in general conference? (common consent).

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the exclusion of black people from the priesthood was more or less formalized between 1847 and 1852. No statement is made of the specifics of how the exclusion came about. There is a scripture on the subject: Abr.1:23-26.

I do know that when I was on my mission in the late 1960s, we were instructed to not teach anyone who was obviously black, unless they asked specifically to be taught. In other words, if we tracted someone up we were to do a 'meet and greet' only!

At the time I didn't think it was discriminatory, but now..................................................................................

Edited January 13, 2011 by mrmarklin

[Suzie]

I do know that when I was on my mission in the late 1960s, we were instructed to not teach anyone who was obviously black, unless they asked specifically to be taught. In other words, if we tracted someone up we were to do a 'meet and greet' only!

At th time I didn't think it was discriminatory, but now..................................................................................

Interesting. Where did you serve? (if you don't mind the question).

[Just_A_Guy]

For what it's worth -

It's fun to talk about "this practice wasn't established by common consent". But really, very little of the Church's modern practices can be chalked up to that--the canon of scripture (mostly) and the pro forma sustaining of Church officers, yes; but not much else.

By the time Joseph Smith died, "common consent" had already pretty much transitioned from "ecclesiastical democracy" to "if you don't like what the leadership is doing, you're free to leave".

[Vanhin]

Actually, he is referring to the Church leaders trying to give a reason for the ban, not to the Saints as a congregated body or maybe I missed something?

Well obviously what he said applies to everyone in the Church, even if he was specifically addressing the comments of past leaders. The caution to not teach speculation as doctrine surely applies to all of us, and not just on this topic.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest]

It boggles my mind that people, especially LDS people can be so bold as to call policies instituted by past prophets as a mistake.

It is the same mind boggled reaction I get when people, especially LDS people tell me that my experiences with the promptings of the Holy Ghost in the Catholic church was the wrong Spirit.

It is the product of a proud people who think that they know it all and that they are somehow superior to the work of the Holy Ghost. For them to judge Brigham Young's instructions as a prophet of God leading the Church of his time as a mistake is to say the Holy Ghost that guided him was mistaken.

We do not know what the Spirit's purpose, nor do we know if the survival of the church would have been severely compromised if the blacks were given the priesthood at that time in America. We look back with our current worldview and call on the workings of the Holy Ghost as a stupid mistake full of our superiority and chests puffed up... That we are somehow better people.

I recount my testimony of being guided by the Holy Ghost to embrace the Catholic church fully, kissing the wooden foot of the crucified Christ, praying the rosary over and over until my baptism into the LDS church. People, especially LDS people tell me I was wrong to be Catholic and that it was the devil who prompted me to embrace Catholicism. Oh really? And you are such an expert that you know exactly what the Holy Ghost desires of me? That my journey as a Catholic prepared me for the fullness of the restored gospel is undeniable. You, in your puffed up LDS superiority may not see it nor understand it. But I testify of the truth of it and that I wouldn't be LDS now without it.

So go on and call Brigham Young's decisions as a prophet a mistake just like you call my Catholic foundation a mistake. I call it a prideful denial of the power of the Holy Ghost to guide the church and its members.

P.S. I use the word You only as it applies to the people who think the way I described. If it does not apply to you, then YOU are not who I'm talking about.

Edited January 13, 2011 by anatess

[skippy740]

Okay, I'm not going to read this whole thread to see what was previously posted, but I have a few things to add.

I think it's interesting how easy it must be for us to look back in history and see all the errors... as if the church was restored in its fullness... overnight.

The law of tithing (for example) wasn't part of the required commitment for a temple recommend until the turn of the century. I don't know when the WoW was "required" for a temple recommend, but it wasn't when Joseph Smith received the revelation.

Half of the Doctrine & Covenants is full of reproving against Joseph Smith. Prophets make mistakes... but they will never lead us astray from the Gospel of Jesus Christ or away from the standards and commandments that we must live by in order to return to our Father.

Now, you might say that he taught things that were offensive... or implemented policies that prevented people from embracing the Gospel.

Church policy is different from doctrinal teachings. The true pure teachings are good and will help us... policies are always being improved upon.

It's been way over 100 years since he's been here... why are we still feeling offended?

[bytebear]

Just to give some historic perspective, if you look at articles about the church prior to the civil rights movement, the LDS church was never criticized for its policy. In fact, it's generally not mentioned. Even with all the "rhetoric" that we find abhorrent today, it was simply a common aspect of society at the time. Even this Time Magazine article from 1957 says nothing about the ban. It was simply not a political issue.

And whatever the reason, the common explanations fit hand in hand with common Christian thought. The "mark of Cain" was not invented by Mormons (despite the rantings of anti-Mormons). It was a Christian concept commonly believed by both Catholic and Protestant. It is still used to justify bigotry today in some churches.

It's also important to read quotes from Brigham Young about the sin of mistreatment of blacks, and encouraged education and believed that they could be equal in society if given opportunity. While Mormons were baptizing blacks, Christians were claiming blacks had no souls and therefore were not really people.

Just keep that in mind when studying Church history. Don't pick and choose and don't look at Mormonism in a vacuum. Compare it to the general culture of the day.

Edited January 13, 2011 by bytebear

[MarginOfError]

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the exclusion of black people from the priesthood was more or less formalized between 1847 and 1852. No statement is made of the specifics of how the exclusion came about. There is a scripture on the subject: Abr.1:23-26.

I find that passage to be very shaky evidence. Perhaps you could create a trail of scriptural evidence that ties the African races to Cain. The best I've ever been able to do is tie them to the land of Canaan, which was named for a man named...wait for it...Canaan.

It's also interesting to note that Smith usually referred to black people as "the sons of Ham." To him, at least, Cain's transgressions weren't nearly as important as Ham's, if it was important to him at all.

It boggles my mind that people, especially LDS people can be so bold as to call policies instituted by past prophets as a mistake.

At the same time, I don't think it's inappropriate to admit plausible explanations exist. Bigotry and racism certainly is a plausible explanation, as are some of the explanations you pose. I think where we get into trouble is in 1) saying we know what the reason was and teaching it as a fact (when in fact we don't know), and 2) not considering the context of history and then evaluating their decisions in that time based on the morals and values of our day.

[Suzie]

It boggles my mind that people, especially LDS people can be so bold as to call policies instituted by past prophets as a mistake.

Why? If we are talking about policies, what is the issue?

[Suzie]

For those interested in knowing more, here is a link of Margaret Young and Darius Gray on the topic. They share a lot of information giving a historical perspective and also share questions (like I have and probably many others who studied this topic in depth). Very interesting:

Blacks and the LDS Priesthood

When I started reading about Elijah Abel many, many years ago my heart was touched by the willingness of this Saint to do what was right. He was a humble man who helped Joseph Smith in many occasions and even received his washing and anointing, how sad must have been the day

when he had to request to go to the temple to receive his own endowment and was denied that right twice, despite the fact that he was a worthy Priesthood holder, a Seventy and had served at that point of time, two missions.

[Guest]

Why? If we are talking about policies, what is the issue?

So, what you're saying is... because it's just policy it is not something that prophets implore the guidance of the Holy Ghost on?

[Suzie]

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).

[Suzie]

So, what you're saying is... because it's just policy it is not something that prophets implore the guidance of the Holy Ghost on?

I am making a direct separation between policy and revelation. I don't think you need the Holy Spirit in the policy that states we shouldn't have lights on Christmas trees in the chapel because it may cause a fire. That's common sense. Again, policies are one thing, revelation is another.

I consider this issue (ban on the Priesthood) a policy or a practice (unless someone can kindly direct me to the revelation and consequent vote in general conference on this issue). I will be glad to change my position.