Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenson

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_MrSimpleton
_Emeritus
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:35 pm

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _MrSimpleton »

Tobin wrote:
MrSimpleton wrote:
That First Presidencies stated the ban was of God is something that Stevenson can not get around by blaming the ban on character flaws of Brigham Young. The only, somewhat, tenable position, is that the Priesthood ban is like divorce; God permitted Moses to allow divorce because the hardness of the hearts of the people.


Not at all. Brigham Young was a man and not God. He made mistakes. As are the statements from the First Presidency that it was of God. They were mistaken as well.


Please see Stevenson's explanation of where "true doctrine is found"; "As Apostle Neil L. Andersen has said, true doctrine is found in statements approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:..."

Also, it is not in LDS teachings that united statements are wrong.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _grindael »

Stevenson wrote,

Brigham Young. A man who succumbed to a weakness that the Saints are only beginning to overcome. Unlike Price, Young endorsed slavery, albeit with reservations. While politics likely played a role in Young’s support for it, he would have found himself in good company had he chosen to oppose it outright. How could Mormonism not only produce men with such differing ideologies but with one as its prophet and another as its apostate? Even by standards known and accessible in mid-nineteenth-century America, it is hard to explain away racial rhetoric when anti-slavery activists such as Price, William Lloyd Garrison, and Angelina Grimke were successfully meeting a much higher standard–––and paying a heavy price for it.


First, Brigham Young's "reservations" only had to do with the treatment of slaves, not the issue that they were in inferior race that God had doomed to servitude until all the sons of Abel had their chance at the priesthood. Also, he stated that they would be below the seed of Abel "for all eternity".

McCary was good elder, as long as he knew his place. But this wasn't ever going to work even with stoics like Elijah Ables (Abel) who objected to the stereotyping put on him at a Conference in Cincinatti in 1843. I give Ables credit. He stuck it out. Poor guy.

Young was locked into prophecy. (Slaves will rise up against their masters). For years, FAIR has been trying to push the idea that Young was only a product of his times, I am glad that someone there is seeing past that flawed apologist drivel.

Mormonism produced men like Young, and Taylor, and Woodruff because of what came out of Joseph Smith. His hatred of the American Government for perceived slights, his penchant for making up prophecies based on events that he could never foretell, and these men believed it all, and fanatically followed his template that the US was doomed, the Indians and Negroes were going to rise up and destroy them all after the Civil War had done it's work in dividing the country and making all the States independent of each other and eventually devolving into wars that would destroy their society, fueled by desolating sickness and plagues from the Almighty, until the Mormons stepped in and "saved the Constitution" and installed Young as President and King of Israel. These men could not have been more wrong in their assessment of the future of America. They got everything wrong. Smith's guesses about the Civil War were wrong, (except that that the coming war would start in South Carolina, which had in 1832 made overtures of secession) as were his views on the Blacks and the Indians.

Parley P. Pratt prophesied in 1838 that there would not be an unbelieving Gentile left on the American Continent in 50 years or the Book of Mormon would have proven itself false, and this scenario, fueled by Smith's supposed prophetic utterances, set the stage for the racial hatred, the Shadow Government of Deseret, and all the rest. This is clearly set down by Young, who said this in 1861:

5 May 1861
Salt Lake City
LJA 12-56-1, 13; BYC.

He [God] holds the destinies of the nations; it is true they do as they please, yes they cut each others throats, and what will be the result? Will God give it unto their hands in the South to run over the North and act the part of despots? Or will he give the power to the North to overrun the South and decide their fate? No; that he holds in his own hand. What will he do with them? He will let them be angry at each other, for they have declared that they would not have the government of God, and they are everyone of them doing just as they please; they will continue to do so until they find that they have sunk themselves into everlasting woe, and until they have no rule, no authority no gold, no silver,no power nor anything that pertains to the earth and the Saints; all will be taken from them, they will be left poor, and destitute, having no friends and no influence.

There have been quite a number among us foolish enough to run after the things of this earth; they will find that they will receive the reward of. their own doing seven as those will in that kingdom and nation who have persecuted this people, they also will reap the reward of their doings they are already sheared to pieces, they have been divided among themselves for years;they have been watching for the time and opportunity to create for themselves the greatest power possible.

That is all they have been striving for, but they have not had the principle of union amongst them.I do not know whether I shall publish what I am about to say to the world, but Bro. J. V. [Long] may write it down. Eleven of the Slave States have seceded,will they keep together in what they all the Southern confederacy? No, they will not. There are nineteen of the free States; they think that they are united but they are not. By and bye you will see a few of them divide up; they will separate by States one from the other. It will not be the South against the North, but the seceding parties will want an independent government for each of their respective states.

Then by and bye they will sever states asunder, and then it will be state against state. After that you will see the states boasting they have plenty of strength and power, and they will say we want a different kind of government, they will be divided among themselves, and become entirely disunited. As the spirit of God gathers out the honest from among them, and as the knowledge of science and art depart from the them, let the children of God encourage and increase in the spirit of the heavens that they will be prepared to receive the light as fast as it departs from the wicked, that it may come to Zion, that here may be a fulness of all that God has revealed to man, whether of theology, science, mechanism or philosophy.

Let everyman and woman live so that this spirit of intelligence can stay upon the earth, for it will most assuredly leave the wicked nations so fast as they become ripe in iniquity,and they will war one against another until they become like a potter’s vessel, dash to pieces never to be mended again. As far uniting any more, when once broken to pieces, they never will. But if they should unite for an hour or a day, they will again be dashed into fragments, when it will impossible ever to gather them together again, for the principle of union will betaken from them.

Now I suppose you will ask me how long this will be. Do you think they will be so divided as never more to come against us? I think we shall have to stand against them all, therefore gird on your armor, for I want you carry with you every weapon of death which they have invented upon the earth. And what will this do for us? It will prevent us from having our bloodshed, and it will also prevent us from shedding theirs. Our enemies would have shed Joseph Smith’s blood years before they did if it had not been for this practice. The warning has been all the day long to this people, that the wicked would strive to destroy the priesthood from the earth,and the word of the Lord which accompanied this was be prepared, and I will fight your battles.

This is my doctrine today, and I never wish to ask the Lord to do anything that I would not do myself. I know that he puts hooks in the jaws of the wicked, he turns them as the rivers of water; he also governs and controls the affairs of this people. Suppose we had not have gone out into Echo Canyon to prevent the entrance of our friends into this valley, three years ago; the result would have been that they would have strung up you and I. This is what they came for; I knew every plan before they came here; I knew their intentions.

Let every man and woman see that they reign triumphantly in their own houses, let them govern their children in righteousness, and know that the Lord is guiding the old ship Zion. What shall we say? We say that we acknowledge our God. that we want him to reign king of nations as he now does king of saints. It is
just as I frequently say; he holds the result of their act sin his Own hands.

What did you read in the last dispatch. It was there stated that old King James Buchannan has sold his farm in Wheatland and gone to Canada. I suppose he got afraid of his friends and therefore sold out and went. I don’t know but it is his wives. or the mistresses he keeps there and their children that have told him to flee or they would use him up. At any rate it is stated that he had sold his possessions and gone to Canada. Thomas Ford the Governor of Illinois who consented to all the persecutions we suffered there. what was his end? For years he was a poor drunken sot and had to beg his bread and meat, and if he could get a little petty-foggingin some of the lower courts he was glad to do that.

What became of Tom Benton who opposed Joseph Smith every time he called upon the government to redress our wrongs? I mean that veritable Benton that had papers in his pocket authorizing him to destroy this people on the prairies. if we refused to furnish five hundred men for the Mexican war. What has become of him? He is now supping Hell! When he could no longer get into the senate of the United States he got elected to the House of Representatives. When twelve o’clock at night came on the evening at the close of the session, they as usual put back the clock to enable them to finish the business of the session according to law. Old Tom was going to be very magnanimous, and drawing out his watch he informed W. Speaker that it was twelve o’clock and that session of Congress was out. The Speaker called out Mr. Sergeant at arms, just show that man out of doors; we have no use for him.

That was Benton’s last display in Congress, he soon after died and he is now in Hell reaping his reward.This will be the fate of all the enemies of this people,and men that are and have been in this city and sought to destroy you and I, they will all be worse than paupers, and they will do well if they get as good a place in the next state of existence as the most ignorant African. But I do not know but it will be as Lyman Wight once said, when they go to Hell he used to say they would have to go down into the lower room, be put behind the soap barrel and there stay. (Courtesy of Van Wagoner's Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, 2009, pp. 1808-09.


Anyone who wants to expound on Young's racism, needs to see it in it's theological light. It sprang from Smith's miscegenation phobias (See his treatise from 1836 in the Messenger & Advocate) and erroneous interpretation of the Bible, that was handed down to these men as the "word of God". They fanatically took up the mantle of Smith's racism and arrogance and hatred of the US Government for not giving him his dues, and ran with it. Everyone was to blame for Smith's ultimate demise, but Smith. Oaths of Vengeance intertwined with more fantastical prophecies that never could or would come to pass were to abound.

31 August 1862
SLC Bowery
Morning.
John Dehlin 9:364-370; DN 12:129.

In a correspondence between Mr. Greeley, of new York, and the President, Mr. Lincoln declared it was his intention to do everything in his power that he thought would save the Union. This was very just and correct in him, but has his course invariably tended to save the Union? Time will show. There is no man can see, unless he sees by the gift and power of revelation, that every move that has been made by the Government has been made to fulfil the sayings of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and all earth and hell cannot help it. The wedge to divide the Union was entered in South Carolina, and all the power of the Government could not prevent it. The Lord spoke to Joseph Smith, on the 25th day of December, 1832, as follows:—“Verily thus saith the Lord, concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls. The days will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at that place; for, behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and thus war shall be poured out upon all nations,” &c. The wickedness of the wicked is onward and downward, while the righteousness of the righteous is onward and upward. Light and darkness, or in other words, right and wrong are with us, and men choose darkness rather than light, wrong rather than right. This is their condemnation. They despise the truth and those who will declare it.


It was RIGHT and TRUTHFUL to declare that God was a racist. How could Young end slavery or not condone it as a "divine institution", when Joseph Smith had declared that "slaves would rise up against their masters"? As B.H. Roberts declared,

Thus in all these important items the remarkable prophecy has been fulfilled. It now remains to call attention to the events it predicts which are still in the future. These are:

First, Great Britain is to call upon other nations for aid, and she with her allies thus formed, is to call on other nations in order to defend themselves against other nations, until war is poured out upon all nations.

Second. A great race war in American--slaves are to rise up against their masters who shall be marshalled and disciplined for war.

Third. The aboriginal inhabitants of America--the Indians-- will become exceedingly angry, and marshalling themselves, will vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.x

Fourth. With sword and by bloodshed and finally with famine and plague, and earthquake; with the thunder of heaven and the fierce and vivid lightning--the inhabitants of the earth will mourn, and be made to feel the wrath and indignation and chastening hand of Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations. (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.1, Ch.24, p.330)


How could Mormons ever advocate for the blacks as equal and integrate them into society with these kinds of PROPHECIES yet to be fulfilled? That would be working against God and his ultimate spokesman, Joseph Smith! It would make them all look incredibly stupid. Better to find a way to explain it all. Folklore. Opinion. ANYTHING ELSE but what it was.

By 1978, the full realization that this just wasn't going to happen, coupled with intense pressure from just about everyone, forced a change in thinking. But they did not let it go easily, and really still have not. (Folklore, opinion, anything else but what it was). They still cling to Young as a "mighty Prophet" (Bruce R. McConkie to Eugene England) even in the face of all of his false prophecies, racism and theological blunders. But Mormons, to cleanse the platter (as Young would say) need to go further and put Smith in the same boat with him, for the two are one.

Mormon "prophets" ARE defined by this. They still are. Until they wake up and take responsibility themselves, instead of delegating it to anonymous "historians", they will continue to be defined as collaborators in racism, lies and falsehood.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _Tobin »

MrSimpleton wrote:Please see Stevenson's explanation of where "true doctrine is found"; "As Apostle Neil L. Andersen has said, true doctrine is found in statements approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:..."

Also, it is not in LDS teachings that united statements are wrong.
Obviously Stevenson doesn't really believe that though. It is inescapable that if the ban against Blacks holding the priesthood was due to BY's own biases (which I believe accurately describes Stevenson's position), then any statement made by others that is was "of God" is mistaken. Now if Stevenson wishes to pay lip-service to the idea the "true doctrine is found" from men (including the First Presidency) instead of from God, that is his prerogative. However, I think he can't maintain the position that BY was acting as a man in this instance and not be forced to reject the nonsense of these other statements and realize that these other instances are also the First Presidency acting as men.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _grindael »

True doctrine is found in any statement made by any Mormon "authority" that speaks "by the power of the Holy Ghost". This is best described by Marion G. Romney:

“What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, what the Lord would say if he were here. IF WE DO NOT AGREE with what they say, it is because WE ARE OUT OF HARMONY with the Spirit of the Lord.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)


This is the CORRECT teaching about "true" Mormon doctrine, given by a Mormon “prophet, seer & revelator” in Conference, approved by the "prophet" sitting there with him and published to the world in a Conference Report. Let the backpedaling begin.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_MrSimpleton
_Emeritus
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:35 pm

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _MrSimpleton »

Tobin wrote:
MrSimpleton wrote:Please see Stevenson's explanation of where "true doctrine is found"; "As Apostle Neil L. Andersen has said, true doctrine is found in statements approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:..."

Also, it is not in LDS teachings that united statements are wrong.
Obviously Stevenson doesn't really believe that though. It is inescapable that if the ban against Blacks holding the priesthood was due to BY's own biases (which I believe accurately describes Stevenson's position), then any statement made by others that is was "of God" is mistaken. Now if Stevenson wishes to pay lip-service to the idea the "true doctrine is found" from men (including the First Presidency) instead of from God, that is his prerogative. However, I think he can't maintain the position that BY was acting as a man in this instance and not be forced to reject the nonsense of these other statements and realize that these other instances are also the First Presidency acting as men.


He referenced and applied his personal take on Andersen's statement, to establish the "protocols" that Young did not follow:

"We also have the fortune of knowing how revelation happens in this Church, and it’s a process Brigham Young had participated in as well (e.g. D&C 133). So whatever his beliefs or justifcation, he did not follow the standard protocol for ratifying his comments as a binding revelation upon the Saints. As Apostle Neil L. Andersen has said, true doctrine is found in statements approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:..."

Until otherwise indicated by Stevenson, we have to take him at his word, that he believes what he wrote. Specifically, that he believes that true Doctrine is found in statements approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.

I think Stevenson should, at a minimum, address the First Presidency statements (I believe Stevenson claims he did address the lowry letter in his book) and his position on Brigham Young. I believe, that my first post provides a reasonable "out" for the conundrum apparent in Stevenson's essay.
_russellwades
_Emeritus
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:19 am

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _russellwades »

Final posting, and then I must commit my resources elsewhere (though I have thoroughly enjoyed the engagement):

While one cannot ignore that pivotal role that Brigham Young played in establishing the priesthood restriction, he also was not the only player in it. It did not become truly institutionalized until 1879 after his death (when Elijah Able[s] was denied his endowment based on his racial makeup). You mention other First Presidency statements (e.g. the 1949 statement). I discuss it at length in my book, and I find the provenance of those statements to be less-than-impressive. You ask me to state my position on Brigham Young, but that request strikes me as incredibly redundant.

I wish all well in the process of making sense of this. Whether you see "outs," "conundrums," or possibilities, these issues make for certainly interesting--and difficult-- waters to navigate.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
_MrSimpleton
_Emeritus
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:35 pm

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _MrSimpleton »

russellwades wrote:Final posting, and then I must commit my resources elsewhere (though I have thoroughly enjoyed the engagement):

While one cannot ignore that pivotal role that Brigham Young played in establishing the priesthood restriction, he also was not the only player in it. It did not become truly institutionalized until 1879 after his death (when Elijah Able[s] was denied his endowment based on his racial makeup). You mention other First Presidency statements (e.g. the 1949 statement). I discuss it at length in my book, and I find the provenance of those statements to be less-than-impressive.

I wish all well in the process of making sense of this. Whether you see "outs," "conundrums," or possibilities, It's certainly interesting waters to navigate. .


Do you believe the ban was Doctrine and/or of God?

Applying your rationale (true Doctrine is found is found in First Presidency statements), do the First Presidency statements - 1940's and 1960's - on the ban establish that ban was of God?

Do you apply the same "character flaw" approach to the statements from the First Presidency.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _sock puppet »

russellwades wrote:You mention other First Presidency statements (e.g. the 1949 statement). I discuss it at length in my book, and I find the provenance of those statements to be less-than-impressive.

Me too. George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark and David O. McKay were just three poseurs in 1949 as are Thomas S Monson, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf are in 2014. The provenance as from God's mouthpieces is a joke.
_russellwades
_Emeritus
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:19 am

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _russellwades »

I'll bite.

It's no secret that I believe the priesthood restriction to be the product of an American race culture. Likewise, it's no secret that theologically, I accept that "all are alike unto God." It's difficult to see how someone could wrangle the priesthood restriction into living up to that vision.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Sanctorian
_Emeritus
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Coming to Grips With Brigham and Race - Russell Stevenso

Post by _Sanctorian »

russellwades wrote:I'll bite. Now it's the last post.

It's no secret that I believe the priesthood restriction to be the product of an American race culture. Likewise, it's no secret that theologically, I accept that "all are alike unto God." It's difficult to see how someone could wrangle the priesthood restriction into living up to that vision.


Because it doesn't which is why we now have a LDS.org essay throwing BY under the bus. In other words, he did something that does not jive with being a follower of Christ. Being an alleged prophet, that creates a big problem don't ya think?
I'm a Ziontologist. I self identify as such.
Post Reply