Issues with Brigham Young

[MarginOfError]

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

That doesn't prove your point at all. The evidence you provide is every bit as circumstantial as the evidence I've provided. Again, you're trying to fit every piece of new information into your preconceived notion. I'm sure your back must hurt by now from bending it back so far.

But since we're putting spins on statements, isn't it also plausible that the revelation to repeal the ban also came with a repudiation to the effect of, "I'm not waiting any longer for you guys to get your act together."

Simply put, reading all of the information in its proper context, it is nigh impossible to claim that many of the statements made by church leaders weren't racially motivated. And it is nigh impossible to state unequivocally that it isn't plausible that racial motivations didn't play a major role in the priesthood ban.

[MarginOfError]

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

LOL. Nice.

"God chose Brigham Young because he was a racist who would implement a ban on the priesthood."

Very nice indeed.

[Vanhin]

Alrighty then. Thanks for the conversation.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

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

Vanhin, are you suggesting the Lord chose Brigham Young and other leaders who were racist in their thinking for some sort of... purpose? The ban? Taking away the rights to the Priesthood to a certain group of people for 126 years? Or did you mean something completely different?

[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

Vanhin, are you suggesting the Lord chose Brigham Young and other leaders who were racist in their thinking for some sort of... purpose? The ban? Taking away the rights to the Priesthood to a certain group of people for 126 years? Or did you mean something completely different?

Oh not really. I'm saying that I believe the priesthood ban was the Lord's will for all the reasons I have already explained, and that I'm not inclined to accept any other explanation if it means I would have to accept that it was not the Lord's will. So, if there are other factor's involved, then the Lord's will was accomplished by them or despite them.

You said, "I can give the possibility of the Lord['s] involvement on the ban...". Do you mean that in addition to the alleged "racial motivations" it is possible that Lord was involved?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

Oh not really. I'm saying that I believe the priesthood ban was the Lord's will for all the reasons I have already explained, and that I'm not inclined to accept any other explanation if it means I would have to accept that it was not the Lord's will. So, if there are other factor's involved, then the Lord's will was accomplished by them or despite them.

Then it seems like you ended the discussion right there and wish not to venture to other possibilities for the ban? I don't blame you, in my years as a member studying the topic most people I encountered didn't want to pursue other possibilities, maybe is an unconscious fear because exploring other possibilities may open a can of worms very few people are willing to dig in.

You said, "I can give the possibility of the Lord['s] involvement on the ban...". Do you mean that in addition to the alleged "racial motivations" it is possible that Lord was involved?

You know, I have thought a lot about this. I can give a very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban (and I say this because I try to remain open minded to new ideas and information) however, I am giving an even less chance that the ban was imposed by the Lord. Right now, my studies and conclusions are leading to what we have been discussing as possible reasons.

[Suzie]

I thought you and Margin (and whoever else is reading) may like to check out this article by Lester Bush (not sure if anyone link to it earlier on this thread). I think is fantastic and describes historically the things we have been discussing as well as many of my thoughts:

https://dialoguejournal.com/2010/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/

[Vanhin]

Oh not really. I'm saying that I believe the priesthood ban was the Lord's will for all the reasons I have already explained, and that I'm not inclined to accept any other explanation if it means I would have to accept that it was not the Lord's will. So, if there are other factor's involved, then the Lord's will was accomplished by them or despite them.

Then it seems like you ended the discussion right there and wish not to venture to other possibilities for the ban? I don't blame you, in my years as a member studying the topic most people I encountered didn't want to pursue other possibilities, maybe is an unconscious fear because exploring other possibilities may open a can of worms very few people are willing to dig in.

I hope I didn't give the impression that there was a possibility that I could be convinced otherwise about this matter. Though, I'm not worried about cans of worms. I've opened all the cans already. I'm clearly okay with the leaders of the Church being imperfect, yet still men of God. I know Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets of God in the only true Church upon the face of this earth, as well as their successors up to President Monson. If the ban was false doctrine, the Lord would have caused them to express that by now. The only things that have changed concerning the ban, from the days when it was in effect, are the following:

1) The ban was lifted.

2) Speculation on why the Lord banned the lineage has been repudiated. We simply do not know.

The fact that apostles still refer to the former ban as a commandment or revelation is all the reason I need to feel the way I do about it.

You said, "I can give the possibility of the Lord['s] involvement on the ban...". Do you mean that in addition to the alleged "racial motivations" it is possible that Lord was involved?

You know, I have thought a lot about this. I can give a very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban (and I say this because I try to remain open minded to new ideas and information) however, I am giving an even less chance that the ban was imposed by the Lord. Right now, my studies and conclusions are leading to what we have been discussing as possible reasons.

Well, I'm glad to know that you are beginning to allow the possibility to enter your mind. There's perhaps the difference between you and me. I'm not still trying to figure out whether the prophet and apostles of this Church are called of God, and beyond that, whether they are righteous/honest men. I already know they are. Those who were present when the revelation was received testified that it was a revelation from God, and so to me that means it was a revelation from God. You add to that the other points I have made, namely that the Church does not say that the ban was a "mistake", and that the Lord allowed His Church to maintain such a policy for so long, there's no question in my mind it was His will to begin with, whatever the circumstance were that started the ban, or the reasons behind it.

It's no different than my view on the Book of Mormon. I already found out that it is the word of God, without the need of any tangible evidence to prove it. And it's no different than my testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, despite the very interesting historical "cans of worms" that I might run into during the course of time, whether it be 14 year old brides or seer stones. It won't make a difference to me and my God given knowledge that he is a true prophet. Similarly, I do not believe that the Lord would allow the prophets and apostles of His Church to lead us astray on such a serious matter for so long.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I thought you and Margin (and whoever else is reading) may like to check out this article by Lester Bush (not sure if anyone link to it earlier on this thread). I think is fantastic and describes historically the things we have been discussing as well as many of my thoughts:

https://dialoguejournal.com/2010/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/

Thanks I'll take a look at it.

Vanhin

[Nathan6329]

I think I created a monster with this thread

[mordorbund]

As a personal favor to me and future saints everywhere, if you're joining the Prophet in prayer and at some point it changes from a prayer to a revelation - please, please, please silently remove yourself from the prayer, find pen and paper, AND WRITE DOWN THE DAD-GUMMED REVELATION!!!

If you send a copy to the Church Historian's office, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Nathan6329]

This thread has already answered my question so I don't need to be convinced by anyone anymore.

I understand that times were different and that Brigham Young's ways of thinking were normal back then, but God still wouldn't have directed him to teach bad things about black people like he did so they were his own views and not the lord's. There is probably a reason certain teachings were and were not recorded in the scriptures, and the ones that are considered questionable are usually the ones that are part of sermons and teachings that are not in the scriptures.

[Suzie]

Well, I'm glad to know that you are beginning to allow the possibility to enter your mind.

The possibility was always there, as expressed in my posts on this topic. I just lean strongly towards bigotry (just like Margaret and so many others in the bloggernacle). It would be very foolish in my opinion for me to consider just one reason knowing that all the facts have not been answered and there are so many "holes" (historically speaking).

There's perhaps the difference between you and me. I'm not still trying to figure out whether the prophet and apostles of this Church are called of God, and beyond that, whether they are righteous/honest men. I already know they are.

You are making a lot of erroneous assumptions here with regards to my views (not appreciated). I believe a person can be called of God and yet have their personal views, wrong and all (the quotes of past leaders with regards to this topic is overwhelming evidence) unless you think the Lord through his Prophet/s saw black people as a bunch of uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence and commanded him/them to say so?.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Suzie

[Suzie]

I think I created a monster with this thread

No.

The monster was created 159 years ago.

[FunkyTown]

The possibility was always there, as expressed in my posts on this topic. I just lean strongly towards bigotry (just like Margaret and so many others in the bloggernacle). It would be very foolish in my opinion for me to consider just one reason knowing that all the facts have not been answered and there are so many "holes" (historically speaking).

You are making a lot of erroneous assumptions here with regards to my views (not appreciated). I believe a person can be called of God and yet have their personal views, wrong and all (the quotes of past leaders with regards to this topic is overwhelming evidence) unless you think the Lord through his Prophet/s saw black people as a bunch of uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence and commanded him/them to say so?.

Suzie? Prophets are fallible.

Moses killed a man despite there being no evidence he was commanded of God to do so.

Jonah was told to prophesy and fled in terror from telling the people the truth.

It's clear from scripture that prophets can be fallible.

The point is: How do we determine what is simply uncomfortable for us and what is a failure of the prophet?

I'm very uncomfortable with agreeing with you or the 'Bloggernacle' on this. Not because I think you're wrong - You could very well be - But because you have seemed very defensive on this thread and filled with a fiery indignation. We must approach what the prophet has said with the meek understanding that we could be wrong and that the world could be wrong.

Then, we thoughtfully and prayerfully consider it.

I respect and love brother Brigham and his contributions. He certainly had failings, as we know every prophet with the exception of the Savior did. Was he wrong on this? Maybe.

But we should also color our language with the respect and love a prophet of the Lord deserves.

[Suzie]

But because you have seemed very defensive on this thread and filled with a fiery indignation.

Fiery indignation? That's a little too dramatic. I believe all I am doing is presenting historical facts that so far, no one has been able to challenge. Does the possibility of bigotry sounds awful? Of course it does.

We must approach what the prophet has said with the meek understanding that we could be wrong and that the world could be wrong.

Of course! We could be wrong, the world could be wrong, Brigham Young could have been wrong. Not sure of what your point is. I don't think I ever claim to hold the Truth, I am open to possibilities as discussed in this thread, just because I lean towards one (which in my opinion has the most solid base) doesn't mean I believe I hold "the truth".

But we should also color our language with the respect and love a prophet of the Lord deserves.

What makes you think otherwise? My last comment? Those are his words, I was illustrating the fact that just because a Prophet may have been called by God does not mean every word he speaks is what the Lord tells him to say.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Suzie
typos

[Suzie]

How do we determine what is simply uncomfortable for us and what is a failure of the prophet?.

In my entirely personal view, we can try to determine that through being open to all possibilities within this issue, doing a depth research about it, ponder and then present it to the Lord.

[FunkyTown]

Some points:

Fiery indignation? That's a little too dramatic. I believe all I am doing is presenting historical facts that so far, no one has been able to challenge. Does the possibility of bigotry sounds awful? Of course it does.

Why does it sound awful?

Of course! We could be wrong, the world could be wrong, Brigham Young could have been wrong. Not sure of what your point is. I don't think I ever claim to hold the Truth, I am open to possibilities as discussed in this thread, just because I lean towards one (which in my opinion has the most solid base) doesn't mean I believe I hold "the truth".

You are going in to dangerous territory, Suzie. You are doing what the zeitgeist demands - Reinterpreting the past according to the present worlds ideals. We can not do that, as members of Christs church. We can only interpret scripture as the Savior would.

How often did the Savior preach of Moses' failings? How often did he preach of Jonah's?

You claim to believe you do not know the truth. That is untrue. You are expressing your opinion, which is what we all believe to be truth until it is proven wrong. If you truly believed you didn't have the truth, when asked on this, you would simply eloquently shrug and say "I don't know the answer to that."

Moses struck the rock in anger and water spilled forth. His actions were wrong and he never entered the promised land because of it. Despite this, one can still see the hand of God in that action - The water that spilled forth.

You might be better served looking for God's hand in everything, rather than trying to find out what was his opinion and what God's was.

[MarginOfError]

With all do respect, Funky, I think you would do well to recognize that one can look at multiple angles and even criticize prophets for their personal short comings while acknowledging that the complete body of those prophets' work indicate a general pattern of goodness.

What Suzie and I have found frustrating is that despite repeated statements that we see evidence (and find some of it to be persuasive) to suggest the possibility of racial biases in the priesthood ban, that we accept it as irrefutable fact, and that we are denouncing the church leaders as false.

We are not!

We simply posit that it is conceivable that the priesthood ban was instituted and/or endured so long because of racial biases--that it could be one of very few failings within a long series of great work accomplished. Quite honestly, the insinuations that we don't have faith in the prophets because we see potential for such shortcomings is insulting. It takes incredible faith to remain loyal to a church with leaders so fantastically flawed as ours. But that's the point...it isn't their church, it's the Lord's church, and that's who we put our trust in, even when things in the church's history don't seem to add up.

[MarginOfError]

You are going in to dangerous territory, Suzie. You are doing what the zeitgeist demands - Reinterpreting the past according to the present worlds ideals. We can not do that, as members of Christs church. We can only interpret scripture as the Savior would.

Actually, she isn't doing that. She'll be the first to admit that such racism was the common practice of the time.

I imagine if you talked with her, you'd also learn how much she has learned about herself and her testimony through researching this topic. For me, it sheds a lot of light on overcoming tradition barriers in the church, things like "well we've always done it this way." She's not passing any kind of judgment on past leaders, but trying to understand the experience, evaluate it, and learn from it.

[Suzie]

Some points:

Why does it sound awful?

You mean the possibility that a whole group of people for more than 100 years were deprived from the Priesthood because one of the Prophets hold racist views and applied a ban? I have to explain why it sounds awful?

You are going in to dangerous territory, Suzie. You are doing what the zeitgeist demands - Reinterpreting the past according to the present worlds ideals. We can not do that, as members of Christs church. We can only interpret scripture as the Savior would.

Funky, please enough of dramatics (first the fiery indignation and now the dangerous territory?). I am fully aware that the views of Brigham Young and others were common within their era (I don't think anyone denies that). The point is: Do these views were carried out to the point of setting a priesthood ban to blacks? That's the issue here.

You claim to believe you do not know the truth. That is untrue. You are expressing your opinion, which is what we all believe to be truth until it is proven wrong. If you truly believed you didn't have the truth, when asked on this, you would simply eloquently shrug and say "I don't know the answer to that."

It would be very foolish for me to state I have "the truth" when so many elements are missing and when I don't know all the facts. Again, based on myyears of study this issue and my opinion I am leaning towards one possibility as stated before. I am not sure why there are issues that I state my personal opinion and provide historical facts. If you think differently, then I respect it.

You might be better served looking for God's hand in everything, rather than trying to find out what was his opinion and what God's was.

Hmmm...I guess that's for me to decide.

[FunkyTown]

With all do respect, Funky, I think you would do well to recognize that one can look at multiple angles and even criticize prophets for their personal short comings while acknowledging that the complete body of those prophets' work indicate a general pattern of goodness.

What Suzie and I have found frustrating is that despite repeated statements that we see evidence (and find some of it to be persuasive) to suggest the possibility of racial biases in the priesthood ban, that we accept it as irrefutable fact, and that we are denouncing the church leaders as false.

We are not!

We simply posit that it is conceivable that the priesthood ban was instituted and/or endured so long because of racial biases--that it could be one of very few failings within a long series of great work accomplished. Quite honestly, the insinuations that we don't have faith in the prophets because we see potential for such shortcomings is insulting. It takes incredible faith to remain loyal to a church with leaders so fantastically flawed as ours. But that's the point...it isn't their church, it's the Lord's church, and that's who we put our trust in, even when things in the church's history don't seem to add up.

I certainly don't think you're denouncing the church as false, Moe. I don't believe Suzie is, either.

I don't feel it's wrong to question the church leadership, since unquestioning obedience leads to some serious mental gymnastics.

My concern lies in the problem itself. Prophets make mistakes. They all do.

With those who need to overcome those mistakes in order to progress to another level, it's vital that we listen to their concerns and try to come to a loving understanding of where they're coming from.

However, once we have addressed those concerns for them, these threads lead to a much trickier question: When we start to discuss prophets in terms of 'Giving opinions' and 'Giving inspired doctrine', we have to be able to explain how to tell the difference to someone who is not ourselves.

I can no more tell you that a prophet's words are uninspired than I can tell you that you don't feel the spirit.

Once we've hit that point, the threads serve no purpose other than to cause contention.

Moe? You're one of the most intelligent, insightful people in defense of truth on here. I would never question yours, or Suzie's, devotion to the gospel.

I do question how we can possibly know, barring personal inspiration or the words of the church leaders, what words were exclusively Brighams and what words were inspired of God.

[MarginOfError]

You might be better served looking for God's hand in everything, rather than trying to find out what was his opinion and what God's was.

With respect to this one, I don't know Funky. It sounds like you're in dangerous territory.

There have been comments made by General Authorities that congregations should refrain from singing The Spirit of God during meetings in order to protect the sacred nature of the song. Here are a couple of first person reports of incidents where such occurred in the extreme:

https://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?5766-specific-song-not-to-be-sung-in-regular-mtg&p=55710&viewfull=1#post55710

https://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?5766-specific-song-not-to-be-sung-in-regular-mtg&p=55829&viewfull=1#post55829

So you're telling me that because some General Authorities have stated that the Spirit of God is too sacred to be sung in a normal meeting that I should be looking for God's hand in that declaration and not determining if it's the opinion of a zealous General Authority?

Afterall, it states in they hymnbook that popular well known hymns should be selected for stake conference, and list The Spirit of God as an example. Or consider that in the Choir Book, there is an arrangement of The Spirit of God that includes a "Hosanna Anthem" with a note that that particular arrangement should be reserved for special occasions, such as temple dedications.

So am I now supposed to discourage the singing of a hymn in our hymn book because a General Authority decided to extend the note pertaining to one arrangement of the hymn to the standard arrangement.

Disclosure: I've heard rumor of a letter stating that the hymn should not be sung except at special occasions, but I cannot find it in the letters archive, nor can anyone I know.

[MarginOfError]

I certainly don't think you're denouncing the church as false, Moe. I don't believe Suzie is, either.

I don't feel it's wrong to question the church leadership, since unquestioning obedience leads to some serious mental gymnastics.

My concern lies in the problem itself. Prophets make mistakes. They all do.

With those who need to overcome those mistakes in order to progress to another level, it's vital that we listen to their concerns and try to come to a loving understanding of where they're coming from.

However, once we have addressed those concerns for them, these threads lead to a much trickier question: When we start to discuss prophets in terms of 'Giving opinions' and 'Giving inspired doctrine', we have to be able to explain how to tell the difference to someone who is not ourselves.

I can no more tell you that a prophet's words are uninspired than I can tell you that you don't feel the spirit.

Once we've hit that point, the threads serve no purpose other than to cause contention.

Moe? You're one of the most intelligent, insightful people in defense of truth on here. I would never question yours, or Suzie's, devotion to the gospel.

That's not how your words, and especially not Vanhin's words, came across

I do question how we can possibly know, barring personal inspiration or the words of the church leaders, what words were exclusively Brighams and what words were inspired of God.

We don't. Which is why we need to be careful to couch these things in "I believe" or "It seems likely to me" or "I think it's possible." We've tried hard not to impose finality because we can't know because we weren't there. All we can do is say that things don't seem to add up, and that there appears to be something wrong. And then we explore why it feels that way.

[FunkyTown]

I think we may have cross-posted, Moe. I think my last post, which showed up just before yours, probably answers this.

With respect to this one, I don't know Funky. It sounds like you're in dangerous territory.

There have been comments made by General Authorities that congregations should refrain from singing The Spirit of God during meetings in order to protect the sacred nature of the song. Here are a couple of first person reports of incidents where such occurred in the extreme: