Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenson

[_Nevo]

CFR that Brigham Young actually "struggled" with racial insensitivity.

I don't know exactly what evidence Stevenson was thinking of when he said this, but his MHA article on Elijah Ables quoted Brigham saying some remarkably non-racist things about African ancestry prior to the priesthood ban.

[_Baker]

I'm confused - was Martin Luther King, Jr. a self-proclaimed prophet, in direct communication with god, who advocated marital infidelity and plagiarism? Isn't there a difference between being racist and proclaiming that god advocates your racism?

[_Sammy Jankins]

It is a messy narrative, and a painfully human one. A prophet can only be a prophet when the people want prophecy and expansiveness. Prophethood is not the unlimited capacity to compel a people to the Lord’s will, no matter the circumstances. The Lord allows his children to wander in the wilderness when they refuse to accept the greater truths he has prepared for them.

As another poster once observed, and I've forgotten who it was, this explanation is made difficult by contrasting it with polygamy.

God threatened Joseph Smith's life by sending an angel with a drawn sword. Brigham Young said of polygamy, that it “was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave." Many today call polygamy an Abrahamic test. They emphasize the "reluctance" of the participants. (of the males anyway) Lucy Walker the foster daughter and wife of Joseph Smith also reported at one point that she wished she could die.
None of this stopped God.

Sorry Russell this explanation just doesn't work.

[_russellwades]

Sammy:

No "sorry" necessary; you haven't committed any offense against me. ;)

But I do want to respond to some of your remarks. It's an important conversation that deserves to be (is begging to be) fleshed out.

Juxtaposing this against polygamy is always an interesting exercise. Why were Mormon men so willing to do something [polygamy] that seems so repugnant to us while distancing themselves from racial inclusion--something that we all rightly proclaim as morally axiomatic?

A major element of the picture is the early independence of each narrative from the other (1830-1847). When Mormons were expelled from Jackson County and, ultimately, Missouri, polygamy did not play a major role in the discourse, but race did. Missourians called the Saints "Black Mormons," not "Polygamist Mormons" as an epithet. Even in 1855, Brigham Young had not forgotten what Missourians said about the Saints. And the Saints had long memories; when Brigham Young's tolerance finally cracked ca. December 1847, he was the last to do so. I discussed this in my initial FAIR presentation--that is why this piece is considered to be a "follow-up." The transcript should be available shortly.

It's noteworthy too that white Mormon men were willing to change the fundamentals of their lives to practice polygamy but when it came to an African-American man practicing polygamy [McCary]? It crossed a line and almost led to McCary's death. Interracial sexuality had always been condemned by all but the most radical and strange of Americans. Polygamy was difficult enough for Mormon men to stomach, but interracial polygamy enraged them to the point of murderousness--Brigham Young included.

So while polygamy and race had been fairly independent narratives pre-1847, McCary's arrival in Winter Quarters threw the issues into an explosive brew, ready for a social explosion. So in fact, it was the Saints' very uneasiness with polygamy that led to their violent opposition to blacks being a part of their community.

The early Saints must bear the shame they earned by upholding the priesthood restriction despite both Joseph Smith's and even Brigham Young's initial efforts to include blacks into the priesthood body (for Brigham Young's efforts, see Meeting Minutes, March 26, 1847, Selected Collections, DVD 18). And Brigham Young eventually succumbed to it as well. There aren't many heroes in this story.

[_Fence Sitter]

Sammy:

No "sorry" necessary; you haven't committed any offense against me. ;)

But I do want to respond to some of your remarks. It's an important conversation that deserves to be (is begging to be) fleshed out.

Juxtaposing this against polygamy is always an interesting exercise. Why were Mormon men so willing to do something [polygamy] that seems so repugnant to us while distancing themselves from racial inclusion--something that we all rightly proclaim as morally axiomatic?

A major element of the picture is the early independence of each narrative from the other (1830-1847). When Mormons were expelled from Jackson County and, ultimately, Missouri, polygamy did not play a major role in the discourse, but race did. Missourians called the Saints "Black Mormons," not "Polygamist Mormons" as an epithet. Even in 1855, Brigham Young had not forgotten what Missourians said about the Saints. And the Saints had long memories; when Brigham Young's tolerance finally cracked ca. December 1847, he was the last to do so. I discussed this in my initial FAIR presentation--that is why this piece is considered to be a "follow-up." The transcript should be available shortly.

It's noteworthy too that white Mormon men were willing to change the fundamentals of their lives to practice polygamy but when it came to an African-American man practicing polygamy [McCary]? It crossed a line and almost led to McCary's death. Interracial sexuality had always been condemned by all but the most radical and strange of Americans. Polygamy was difficult enough for Mormon men to stomach, but interracial polygamy enraged them to the point of murderousness--Brigham Young included.

So while polygamy and race had been fairly independent narratives pre-1847, McCary's arrival in Winter Quarters threw the issues into an explosive brew, ready for a social explosion. So in fact, it was the Saints' very uneasiness with polygamy that led to their violent opposition to blacks being a part of their community.

The early Saints must bear the shame they earned by upholding the priesthood restriction despite both Joseph Smith's and even Brigham Young's initial efforts to include blacks into the priesthood body (for Brigham Young's efforts, see Meeting Minutes, March 26, 1847, Selected Collections, DVD 18). And Brigham Young eventually succumbed to it as well. There aren't many heroes in this story.

Welcome.

Are you Russell Stevenson?

Either way, thanks for a thoughtful response.

I think most people will agree that BY was a product of his times when it came to race issues.

The question that is clearly not well addressed is how can God fail to communicate, for over a hundred years, through his purported prophets the means to rescind the ban and, even to this very day, fail to provide the reasons for it in the first place? Even if we accepts the argument that BY was incapable of seeing the error of his ways that fails to explain why no prophet until SKW could not.

Also, on what basis does one excuse Church leaders for such egregious policies preventing a group of people from having the priesthood and at the same time support them when they excommunicate modern day spokespersons like Kate Kelly for asking similar questions about who should hold the priesthood? If, in the future women get the priesthood, will what is going on today be merely more leadership character flaws?

[Guest]

"How can God fail to communicate, for over a hundred years, through his purported prophets the means to rescind the ban?"

When racism begins at the grassroots and seeps upward (as I discussed re: the William McCary incident in the piece), it becomes deeply entrenched, an infection that is hard to eradicate from the head-to-the-toe. The Saints had thick skulls, particularly when they had slipped into the white tribalism of the Utah era (see the "White Zion" chpt. in my Elijah Ables book for more on this).

As for what God does/does not do, that's above my paygrade to state with any degree of certitude for others. Further, I have literally just written a book (available through Greg Kofford) on the twists and turns of this topic over the past 200 years; I had no intention of talking about the entirety of that in a single blog post, particularly when the events of 1847-1852 are as involved as they are. How God could have let this happen--or myriad other awful things? It's an awful evidence of the human condition in which we live. Official Declaration #2 not only changed the game; it was the beginning of the "slow, upward haul" (SWK's words) of "repair[ing] the breach" of racism in the Mormon community.

[_cwald]

Very interesting. Thanks for stopping in and giving us your input and opinion mr. Stevenson.

[_MrSimpleton]

Minor public quibble:

In February 1852, he pointed to his position as prophet in declaring that African-Americans were not eligible to hold the priesthood.

Why did you use the phrase "African-Americans"?

[_Bazooka]

"How can God fail to communicate, for over a hundred years, through his purported prophets the means to rescind the ban?"

When racism begins at the grassroots and seeps upward (as I discussed re: the William McCary incident in the piece), it becomes deeply entrenched, an infection that is hard to eradicate. The Saints had thick skulls, particularly when they had slipped into the white tribalism of the Utah era (see the "White Zion" chpt. in my Elijah Ables book for more on this).

As for what God does/does not do, that's above my paygrade to assess. Further, I have literally just written a book (available through Greg Kofford) on the twists and turns of this topic over the past 200 years; I had no intention of talking about the entirety of that in a single blog post, particularly when the events of 1847-1852 are as involved as they are. How God could have let this happen--or myriad other awful things? It's an awful evidence of the human condition in which we live. Official Declaration #2 not only changed the game; it was the beginning of the "slow, upward haul" (SWK's words) of "repair[ing] the breach" of racism in the Mormon community.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35422

Russell, you may find this ^ thread an interesting read.

In terms of assessing what God does or does not do, that's not above your pay grade to assess. It's the whole point of life, if the Church is to be believed. If Brigham Young was a racist (reluctant or otherwise is irrelevant) then God allowed him to lead the Church astray. Further, God allowed subsequent Prophets to maintain that astrayness (new word and I'm claiming it) even though it would lead to institutional racism across His whole Church. We do not know what God was thinking, but the fact that the Church has now disavowed Brigham Young's actions as Prophet we are forced into one of two conclusions:

1. God is a racist, or allows his Prophets to be racist - this conclusion is further supported by the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
2. God's Prophets are incapable of determining what God wants - we know David O'McKay prayed about reversing the ban and was met with silence from God, which he interpreted as God telling him not to reverse the ban. SWK prayed about reversing the ban and was met with silence from God, which he interpreted as God telling him to reverse the ban.

"Race and the Priesthood" tries to blame the ban on Brigham Young as a person, not a Prophet. So do you. In doing so, it and you condemn all the Prophets from Brigham onwards.

[_russellwades]

Re: the thread about Cuba, I address it in considerable detail in the forthcoming book and produce transcripts of the original archival documents. I hope you have the opportunity to read it.

http://gregkofford.com/products/history-of-blackmormons