After watching
episode 5, I’m tempted to join the 99.9 percent. Here are some notable exchanges from the episode:
John Wilson: Let’s talk about race, right? Blacks anf the priesthood obviously is a big issue.
Camrey Fox: That's one I'm very very curious to learn more about. I mean that still affects our culture so much today and it led to so much pain that still exists today even though blacks are now you know given the priesthood.
Daniel Peterson: Can I respond to that just a little bit? I think first of all we have to acknowledge that Brigham said some things about race that make us cringe today at a paper that I gave oh a few months ago anyway had a fairly long quotation talking about how blacks should not be equal with whites etc etc and then I said that wasn't Brigham Young that was Abraham Lincoln and the fact was that Brigham was not in some ways so atypical of his time. Even people who thought slavery was an injustice did not think that well African-Americans were of the same social standing or should be as whites. Now, we find that uncomfortable and racist today, but it wasn't unusual for the time. And it's we have to we have to be aware of the standards of the time, I think.
Peterson evidently thinks Young “was not in some ways so atypical of his time.” Does that mean that Peterson sees Young as more racist than many of his contemporaries? That even the reprehensible Abraham Lincoln may have had a better record in some ways on race than Young? Should Latter-day Saints hold Lincoln and Young to the same “standards of the time”?
Another part of the discussion:
Wilson: If you were sitting in a dark room all by yourself and the room was incredibly messy and you were to invite someone into that room, they wouldn't be able to really be like, ‘Oh, wow. This is an atrocious place.’ But if you were to all of a sudden flood your room with a flood light and every all of a sudden everybody could see every nook and cranny, you would feel horrifically uncomfortable, right, in that circumstance. what's happening for figures like Brigham Young or even for like the United States in general, like our history of racism and issues is on a big stage with lots of flood lights being shined in it. Not to saying that it excuses anything, but we put an unfair level of expectation and scrutiny on people in positions of prominence, especially when they're trying to do good. M which kind of leads us to the notion, you're a prophet… Shouldn't you know better? Shouldn't God have told you that this was wrong?
Fox: And that's actually something that I've seen multiple people leave the church over because it because it's hard. It's it's a big pain point for a lot of people.
Wilson: How do we reckon with that?
Peterson: I'd say prophets are not divine marionettes. I mean, they will get insight into certain issues in the Lord's timetable, not all issues. Joseph was still learning important things right up to the end of his life. The implication of that is that in 1835 he didn't know as many things as he knew in 1840. Brigham Young was still learning and it's piece by piece, line upon line, precept by precept. We say that but we sometimes don't really mean it. A prophet like anybody else is learning in bits and pieces and gaining insights here and there and occasionally probably being surprised by what he learns, what he's told. To expect a prophet to be somehow omniscient, it just seems to be unrealistic. We put prophets on a pedestal that no human being, including a prophet, can ever really survive on.
Wilson: So, how then do we exercise faith in prophetic leadership without trying to discern whether or not this was a prophetic thing or this was them or this was that, right? How do we walk a path of faith?
Grow: Part of this idea of what a prophet is because of the word, we often conflate it with the word prophesy. as if prophets often or always have some sort of crystal ball into the future. And the New Testament tells us that it's the testimony of Jesus that's the spirit of prophecy. That is what I think essentially the prophet is called to be a special witness of Jesus Christ.
And sometimes I get a little frustrated with the conversations around Brigham Young. Young often times uh we're just drawn to controversy. If you were to look at all of his sermons, this massive corpus of materials of words that he spoke… the controversial stuff is is a very minor part of it, but that's what gets the focus. If you go to read his sermons, you're going to learn about Jesus Christ and him crucified, and you're going to learn about the word of wisdom, and you're going to learn about keeping the commandments, and you're going to learn about being kind to your neighbor. And sometimes he's going to tell you that you should also bathe regularly and things like that that they needed to be told in Pioneer Utah. Now prophecy exists, revelation exists, but at the core the prophet is to teach about Jesus.
I wonder whether Peterson’s response will satisfy anyone who has questions regarding Young’s record on race, his priesthood and temple ordinance ban, and prophetic knowledge. Does abandoning the notion of prophets as “omniscient” and as “divine marionettes” resolve those individuals’ common concerns in this area?
What did Young learn about these matters between 1852 and 1877? Did he receive revelations from God during this period? When? Did Young’s personal views on interracial marriage (see the quotation in my signature) prompt his priesthood and temple ban?
As for Grow’s comments, I think he could identify at least one or two points of Latter-day Saint doctrine that might lead a church member to expect a prophet to prophesy.
It occurs to me that for at least one or two individuals, Young’s teachings and actions pertaining to race, intermarriage, access to priesthood ordination and temple ordinances, violence, and relations with native peoples of Utah (the Timpanogos living in Utah Valley, for example) were not “minor” things. I do regret that Grow gets frustrated by the focus on “the controversial stuff.” He deserves our sympathy.
