DCP’s case for Brigham Young as a moderate abolitionist

[I Have Questions]

I completely agree, the quotes are absolutely horrific. But DCP’s one specific point seems to be that Brigham wanted an end to chattel slavery, and a transition into servitude.

The whole country was wrestling with how to end chattel slavery. Would we let them vote? How would they function in society without education? And it course the pervasive racism inherent in the common interpretation of scripture.

I think we can agree that Young was shrewd and wanted to end the conflict whilst also keeping blacks in their place and in servitude. His proposal was a shrewd political move. I don’t see why or how that moves the needle on Brigham’s reputation as a racist white supremacist.

[Kishkumen]

I completely agree, the quotes are absolutely horrific. But DCP’s one specific point seems to be that Brigham wanted an end to chattel slavery, and a transition into servitude.

Whatever he may be arguing, I don’t find Brigham’s doctrine of divine inequality and servitude praiseworthy but abhorrent. It is a means to perpetuate inequality indefinitely. He was trying to build a better mousetrap because his own beliefs prevented him from seeing that the mousetrap was the problem. As long as human beings justify inequality, unjust domination and exploitation will continue.

[drumdude]

I completely agree, the quotes are absolutely horrific. But DCP’s one specific point seems to be that Brigham wanted an end to chattel slavery, and a transition into servitude.

Whatever he may be arguing, I don’t find Brigham’s doctrine of divine inequality and servitude praiseworthy but abhorrent. It is a means to perpetuate inequality indefinitely. He was trying to build a better mousetrap because his own beliefs prevented him from seeing that the mousetrap was the problem. As long as human beings justify inequality, unjust domination and exploitation will continue.

In his article Dan points to similar quotes by Abraham Lincoln. I do think that, all else being equal, Brigham’s views were consistent with his peers. As Dan points out, most of Mormonism’s ideas about the black race being cursed and lesser was borrowed from the evangelical ideas around it.

The big issue I have here is the seeming lack of divine hand. As with all other cases in Mormonism, the people act the way they would if they were just regular folks with no access to any special divine privileges.

The God of Mormonism is great at helping you find your keys and sending 3 Nephites to fix your flat tire, but he is incapable of telling his prophets on earth to denounce racism until 1978.

[Xenophon]

The big issue I have here is the seeming lack of divine hand. As with all other cases in Mormonism, the people act the way they would if they were just regular folks with no access to any special divine privileges.

This right here.

They weren't without their own issues but you would have hoped that a religion divinely inspired would have looked and acted more like abolitionist Quakers than anything coming out of Utah.

[Kishkumen]

In his article Dan points to similar quotes by Abraham Lincoln.

Oh yeah, like when Lincoln signed the Divine Servitude Proclamation. I remember that now.

I do think that, all else being equal, Brigham’s views were consistent with his peers. As Dan points out, most of Mormonism’s ideas about the black race being cursed and lesser was borrowed from the evangelical ideas around it.

The big issue I have here is the seeming lack of divine hand. As with all other cases in Mormonism, the people act the way they would if they were just regular folks with no access to any special divine privileges.

The God of Mormonism is great at helping you find your keys and sending 3 Nephites to fix your flat tire, but he is incapable of telling his prophets on earth to denounce racism until 1978.

In 1865, Joseph Smith III received a revelation extending the priesthood to men of all races. Yes, his revelation was not perfect and enlightened in every way, but it was a far cry better than anything Brigham ever produced on this topic. Yeah, I am not impressed by Brigham Young . . . at all.

And, let's scrutinize your language above a little more closely:

"Brigham's views were consistent with his peers."

All of them?

Let's consider Abolitionist Angelina Grimké, born into a family of South Carolina enslavers:

I recognize no rights but human rights -- I know nothing of men's rights and women's rights; for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. It is my solemn conviction that, until this principal of equality is recognized and embodied in practice, the church can do nothing effectual for the permanent reformation of the world.

Slavery always has, and always will, produce insurrections wherever it exists, because it is a violation of the natural order of things.

Elijah Parrish Lovejoy:

Abolitionists believe that, as all men are born free, so all who are now held as slaves in this country were born free, and that they are slaves now is a sin . . .

William Lloyd Garrison:

Enslave the liberty of but one human being and the liberties of the world are put in peril.

Charles Sumner:

I do not want to see men’s rights limited by the color of their skin. I want to see them extended to all men, of every color and condition.

I would have a law of freedom; a law of equality; a law of justice. There must be no compromise.

[Kishkumen]

The system that Brigham Young embraced and perpetuated was a system of fundamental inequality. It was one in which women were subordinate to men and non-white people were subordinate to white people. The LDS Church continues to treat women as subordinate to men, and it has yet to face the problem of inequality baked into its history and theology. We can be happy for the progress that has been made, and we can applaud the good things that happened in the past, such as the strides made towards women's suffrage in Utah. But the LDS Church has a long way to go before I am satisfied that it is where it should be, where it is a church in which men and women are equal and children are protected from predators. Unfortunately, it would seem that the demand to maintain inequality in some form is baked into the system. It is one thing to point out that Lincoln, one-time president of the United States, had racist views, but Lincoln is not considered a prophet of God. So interesting that, not being a prophet of God, Lincoln was nevertheless able to free the slaves, while it took the LDS Church, under prophetic guidance and leadership, over a century longer to extend the priesthood to black men. The idea that the LDS prophets did not free the slaves or extend the priesthood to all races hangs over the LDS Church like a foul stench, one that shelters vile views and the broken people who hold them.

[drumdude]

The system that Brigham Young embraced and perpetuated was a system of fundamental inequality. It was one in which women were subordinate to men and non-white people were subordinate to white people. The LDS Church continues to treat women as subordinate to men, and it has yet to face the problem of inequality baked into its history and theology. We can be happy for the progress that has been made, and we can applaud the good things that happened in the past, such as the strides made towards women's suffrage in Utah. But the LDS Church has a long way to go before I am satisfied that it is where it should be, where it is a church in which men and women are equal and children are protected from predators. Unfortunately, it would seem that the demand to maintain inequality in some form is baked into the system. It is one thing to point out that Lincoln, one-time president of the United States, had racist views, but Lincoln is not considered a prophet of God. So interesting that, not being a prophet of God, Lincoln was nevertheless able to free the slaves, while it took the LDS Church, under prophetic guidance and leadership, over a century longer to extend the priesthood to black men. The idea that the LDS prophets did not free the slaves or extend the priesthood to all races hangs over the LDS Church like a foul stench, one that shelters vile views and the broken people who hold them.

Well said. I fear DCP and Mormons like him do not expect the most out of their church, instead they are content to defend it as it exists.

[Kishkumen]

They weren't without their own issues but you would have hoped that a religion divinely inspired would have looked and acted more like abolitionist Quakers than anything coming out of Utah.

It seems to me that it is perfectly consistent with LDS doctrine to say that people can lose their freedom because of their wickedness and not gain it back until God deems them prepared to receive it again. Unfortunately, God's communications come through human beings, and I don't know why we should trust human beings to diagnose accurately why any people fell into servitude or recovered their freedom. Rather, it is the nature of an unjust system to allow for the possibility of one person to be in servitude to another without any choice in the matter. To place the blame on the person in servitude provides a convenient escape clause for those who participate in and enable the unjust system. This is exactly what Brigham was up to. He blamed people for behaving wickedly, whether those people were the slaveowners or the slaves, but he acted as though the institution itself was actually just. That simply is not so. Slavery is evil.

[MG 2.0]

The big issue I have here is the seeming lack of divine hand. As with all other cases in Mormonism, the people act the way they would if they were just regular folks with no access to any special divine privileges.

This right here.

They weren't without their own issues but you would have hoped that a religion divinely inspired would have looked and acted more like abolitionist Quakers than anything coming out of Utah.

Members of the church are a very small slice of humanity. That some would be prone to superstition and irrationality along with their fellow humans is not surprising. Here's the problem. From the outside looking in we really can't judge anyone. We can only look at what we have experienced as being 'true'. That others are sharing their 'truth' in hopes of strengthening their own faith and that of others is something that in one form or another is common to mankind.

In my opinion, however, that doesn't negate or disprove that God exists or that His hand isn't manifest in the world. There are very few, if any, people that can be trusted 100% with ANYTHING associated with the supernatural and that which is beyond our physical senses. We value the experience of others, especially if it leads them to do good in the world and treat others with kindness and generosity. Each person's experience is their own.

In the case of the early prophets, I wasn't there. Neither were any of you. What happened between God and His prophets is between them and them alone. It is not for me to judge. I do believe that God works through the weak things of the world. Not only in the church, but anywhere and everywhere. Now and then He might do His work through the high and mighty...if He can get through their thick skulls.

Where I think critics go off the rails is in their placing of judgement and condemnation above that of forgiveness, humility, and forbearance. What is of more importance are the 'truths' that filter through imperfect vessels, and we are able to grasp those truths and make them into something that can bring us closer to God and to become more like Him.

The lens through which we observe the world makes a LOT of difference. It is frustrating when an atheist seems to think they have a corner on the market on absolute truth by proclaiming that there is no God. What hubris! Those that proclaim faith in God cannot 'prove' anything to anyone except themselves. But they do, if they are worth their salt, stand up for that which they believe to be true. Just like an atheist does. Obviously, the atheist generally has the upper hand being able to 'prove' their thought system through the principles of logic and reason based upon human understanding and the information that is available through the sensory system of the human body.

I willing to say that there might be something MORE to it than that. While at the same time recognizing that I will never fully understand what ALL that might be. I think that God has spoken through the prophets throughout the ages and continues to do so in our day. That is MY truth. It takes me in the direction I want to go of being better person all the way around. Knowing, at the same time, that I am always in need of repentance.

Back to the "divine hand". I see it in the growth and development of the CofJCofLDS. I see 'the fruits' manifest that tell me that God is good and that he is sharing that goodness through the instrumentality of the church system and those that administer the affairs of the church throughout the world.

It's amazing to watch! Reminds me of a football game. Two opposing teams. One cheering on the offense (the church) and the other team booing them and hoping for their loss. In this case, however, I think the final score is already in the books. We're simply playing it all out.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

This right here.

They weren't without their own issues but you would have hoped that a religion divinely inspired would have looked and acted more like abolitionist Quakers than anything coming out of Utah.

Members of the church are a very small slice of humanity. That some would be prone to superstition and irrationality along with their fellow humans is not surprising. Here's the problem. From the outside looking in we really can't judge anyone. We can only look at what we have experienced as being 'true'. That others are sharing their 'truth' in hopes of strengthening their own faith and that of others is something that in one form or another is common to mankind.

In my opinion, however, that doesn't negate or disprove that God exists or that His hand isn't manifest in the world. There are very few, if any, people that can be trusted 100% with ANYTHING associated with the supernatural and that which is beyond our physical senses. We value the experience of others, especially if it leads them to do good in the world and treat others with kindness and generosity. Each person's experience is their own.

In the case of the early prophets, I wasn't there. Neither were any of you. What happened between God and His prophets is between them and them alone. It is not for me to judge. I do believe that God works through the weak things of the world. Not only in the church, but anywhere and everywhere. Now and then He might do His work through the high and mighty...if He can get through their thick skulls.

Where I think critics go off the rails is in their placing of judgement and condemnation above that of forgiveness, humility, and forbearance. What is of more importance are the 'truths' that filter through imperfect vessels, and we are able to grasp those truths and make them into something that can bring us closer to God and to become more like Him.

The lens through which we observe the world makes a LOT of difference. It is frustrating when an atheist seems to think they have a corner on the market on absolute truth by proclaiming that there is no God. What hubris! Those that proclaim faith in God cannot 'prove' anything to anyone except themselves. But they do, if they are worth their salt, stand up for that which they believe to be true. Just like an atheist does. Obviously, the atheist generally has the upper hand being able to 'prove' their thought system through the principles of logic and reason based upon human understanding and the information that is available through the sensory system of the human body.

I willing to say that there might be something MORE to it than that. While at the same time recognizing that I will never fully understand what ALL that might be. I think that God has spoken through the prophets throughout the ages and continues to do so in our day. That is MY truth. It takes me in the direction I want to go of being better person all the way around. Knowing, at the same time, that I am always in need of repentance.

Back to the "divine hand". I see it in the growth and development of the CofJCofLDS. I see 'the fruits' manifest that tell me that God is good and that he is sharing that goodness through the instrumentality of the church system and those that administer the affairs of the church throughout the world.

It's amazing to watch! Reminds me of a football game. Two opposing teams. One cheering on the offense (the church) and the other team booing them and hoping for their loss. In this case, however, I think the final score is already in the books. We're simply playing it all out.

Regards,
MG

Most atheists are not gnostic. Strong atheists have the same problem as a believer by absorbing the burden of proof which is virtually impossible. I am sure you are a gnostic when it comes to Thor or Zeus. Your hubris is claiming you know who God is and you know what he wants us to do. You even know the name of his son. The time to believe there is MORE than that is when there is good evidence for it.