The Myth of Evil Brigham Young

[_Brackite]

For Liz:

The Following is From the Essay Titled, "Neither White nor Black," By Lester Bush:

There once was a time, albeit brief, when a “Negro problem” did not exist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. During those early months in New York and Ohio no mention was even made of Church attitudes towards blacks. The gospel was for “all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples,”1 and no exceptions were made. A Negro, “Black Pete,” was among the first converts in Ohio, and his story was prominently reported in the local press.2 W. W. Phelps opened a mission to Missouri in July 1831 and preached to “all the families of the earth,” specifically mentioning Negroes among his first audience.3 The following year another black, Elijah Abel, was baptized in Maryland.4

...

It is significant, I believe, that in spite of the many discussions of blacks and slavery that had been published by 1836, no reference had been made to the priesthood. Yet, while there was not a written policy on blacks and the priesthood, a precedent had been established. Shortly before publication of the articles on abolitionism, a Negro was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. It has been suggested, considerably after the fact, that this was a mistake which was quickly rectified. Such a claim is totally unfounded and was actually refuted by Joseph F. Smith shortly after being put forth.29 Elijah Abel was ordained an elder 3 March, 1836, and shortly thereafter received his patriarchal blessing from Joseph Smith, Sr.30 In June he was listed among the recently licensed elders31 and on 20 December, 1836, was ordained a seventy.32 Three years later, in June 1839, he was still active in the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum,33 and his seventy’s certificate was renewed in 1841, and again after his arrival in Salt Lake City.34 Moreover, Abel was known by Joseph Smith and reportedly lived for a time in the Prophet’s home.35

...

Though Brigham Young clearly rejected Joseph Smith’s manifest belief that the curse on Ham did not justify Negro slavery, possibly an even greater difference of opinion is reflected in the importance Young ascribed to the alleged connection with Cain. “The seed of Ham, which is [p.70]the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a ‘servant of servants’ to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it”;83 or, “The Lord put a mark upon [Cain], which is the flat nose and the black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.”84

Brigham Young derived a second far-reaching implication from the genealogy of the Negro. Asked what “chance of redemption there was for the Africans,” Young answered that “the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel…. The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” The Journal History account of this conversation, dated 13 February, 1849, is the earliest record of a Church decision to deny the priesthood to Negroes.85 At the time practical implications of the decision were limited. Though reliable information is very scanty, there appear to have been very few Negro Mormons in 1849. Only seven of the twenty thus far identified were men, and three of these were slaves; two of the four freemen had already been given the priesthood.86

Though Brigham Young reaffirmed his stand on priesthood denial to the Negro on many occasions, by far the most striking of the known statements of his position was included in an address to the territorial legislature, 16 January, 1852, recorded in Wilford Woodruff s journal of that date. In this gubernatorial address, Young appears to both confirm himself as the instigator of the priesthood policy, and to bear testimony to its inspired origin: “Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.” This clearly is one of the most important statements in the entire history of this subject.

(Link: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445 )

[_Brackite]

Here is more from that essay, By Lester E. Bush:

Through three decades of discourses, Brigham Young never attributed the policy of priesthood denial to Joseph Smith, nor did he cite the Prophet’s translation of the book of Abraham in support of this doctrine. Neither, of course, had he invoked Joseph Smith on the slavery issue. Nor had any other Church leader cited the Prophet in defense of slavery or priesthood denial. It is perhaps not surprising then that shortly after the departure of President Young’s authoritative voice, questions arose as to what Joseph Smith had taught concerning the Negro.[p.76]

(Link: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445 )



Here is what Richard L. Bushman wrote on Page 289 of his Book:

Joseph [Smith] never commented on the Abraham text or implied it denied priesthood to blacks.

(Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: 2005.)

[_Darth J]

The problem I see here is the core ideas of blacks being cursed and withheld from the priesthood originate with Joseph and the Book of Abraham. Joseph knowing he was making up BS never seemed to beholden to his own BS.

Please show me the reference in the Book of Abraham that clarifies specifically that blacks should not receive the priesthood. Joseph Smith did allow a black man to receive the priesthood, if I recall correctly.

It was Brigham Young who initiated that specific policy. Up until that point, it was unclear. If BY had not initiated that policy, specifically, I believe that blacks would have been allowed to receive the priesthood. If is a policy that should have never been initiated in the first pace, and was put into place thanks to BY's prejudice.

The lineage of Ham is claimed to be where Negroes came from in the LDS understanding of anthropology.,

Abraham 1

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would ain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... 01_157.pdf

In a letter written in 1947 when he was second counselor to President George Albert Smith, [David O.] McKay outlined his own views of the basis of church policy denying priesthood to blacks. He cited one scriptural precedent for the policy, the well-known verse in the Book of Abraham, but stated that the complete rationale lay in the pre-existence.

And Liz, prior to 1978, the apologetic argument in favor of the priesthood ban was that Joseph Smith had instituted it. The pre-1978 apologetic was also that Elijah Abel had his name removed from the priesthood rolls when it was determined that he had Negro heritage. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14397&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

[_Fence Sitter]

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would ain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... 01_157.pdf

In a letter written in 1947 when he was second counselor to President George Albert Smith, [David O.] McKay outlined his own views of the basis of church policy denying priesthood to blacks. He cited one scriptural precedent for the policy, the well-known verse in the Book of Abraham, but stated that the complete rationale lay in the pre-existence.

And Liz, prior to 1978, the apologetic argument in favor of the priesthood ban was that Joseph Smith had instituted it. The pre-1978 apologetic was also that Elijah Abel had his name removed from the priesthood rolls when it was determined that he had Negro heritage. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14397&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Those verses were actually 'translated' by Joseph Smith from a missing portion of the papyri. In other words where lacuna appeared he created the basis for the blacks not having the priesthood. (I know it really does not make a that big difference since he couldn't read the existing text and was making it up either way, but I find it interesting that the part he created out of thin air was about blacks not having the priesthood.)

[_Sophocles]

I think BY makes a convenient scapegoat. His was such a long and high profile administration, there is no hiding it, so they make use of it by pinning all the unseemly stuff on him.

For example, I once asked a sister missionary at Temple Square about Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy. Her response was "Oh, I think you're probably referring to Brigham Young. He is the one that was known for plural marriage..." and launched into her spiel about Utah polygamy.

She didn't deny that Joseph Smith had plural wives, but was able to use BY to avoid the subject altogether. And today, Mormons have been conditioned to say, "Yeah, well, Brigham Young said a lot of things..." as if he was the only one.

This is also starting to happen with Bruce McConkie. "Yeah, well, McConkie said a lot of things..." as if he were an aberration, as if he weren't surrounded by Peterson, Packer, Benson, JFS, and so many others saying the exact same things.