President Hinckley, PBS, and Racism
President Hinckley’s empassioned remarks on racism in yesterday’s Priesthood Session of Conference may be a result of the kind of sentiment found in this week’s Religion and Ethics Newsweekly. Entitled “African-American Mormons,” a segment of this PBS show takes a look at the steady urban growth of American Mormonism and the conversion of blacks to the Church. It also considers the specter of lingering racism in the church by interviewing Darron Smith and Armand Mauss who lament the racist folklore that still seeks to justify the priesthood ban on blacks. Understandably reticent to condemn the teachings of past prophets, Hinckley’s call to eradicate racist language in the Church must surely include any talk that somehow “curses” blacks as a race or questions their allegiance to God in the pre-existence (two unfortunate lynchpins of Mormon racist folklore).
President Hinckley: “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?”
How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?
The irony here, of course, is this exactly what we did assume until 1978.
Comment by Ronan — April 2, 2006 @ 6:48 am
I don’t know, somehow I don’t think Pres. Hinckley was talking about the “curse” parts of the BoM.
I guess I just assumed he was directing his remarks at Republican talk-radio fanboys.
Comment by Seth R. — April 2, 2006 @ 8:56 am
Hinckley’s call to eradicate racist language in the Church must surely include any talk that somehow “curses†blacks as a race or questions their allegiance to God in the pre-existence.
Yes. If Lord Ronan says so. It also ought include anyone who believes in The Book of Mormon and take an even remotely literal approach to its racist comments.
Comment by Eric Russell — April 2, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Eric, c’mon man, you know that the curse wasn’t the skin color (the dark skin was the sign of the curse). I think Lord Ronan is referring to old McConkie and Dyer talks. And I think he’s right.
Comment by Rusty — April 2, 2006 @ 10:52 am
(in #4 I was referring to the curse in the BOM)
Comment by Rusty — April 2, 2006 @ 10:53 am
Agreed Rusty. But even still, anyone who believes that much is clearly racist.
Comment by Eric Russell — April 2, 2006 @ 11:04 am
You guys, I think they are paying attention to us. I sincerely do. There has been a lot of talk about racism on the blog. I said myself that I wish the general authorities would come out and condemn racism.
So the prophet does and we are all, “gee! did you hear that? Where did that come from?”
What did we expect?
Comment by annegb — April 2, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Eric,
I’d prefer it if you called me Sir Ronan. Lord Ronan is a little too presumptous at my tender age, although if you are presaging my future place in the British House of Lords, I welcome it.
I don’t know why you gentlemen are bringing up the Lamanite “curse” in the BoM. By linking racism and the priesthood, the Prophet has in mind, I think, anti-black racism.
What do you think President Hinckley had in mind? Note that he is speaking of a specific form of racism, one that is to be found among Mormons, and one that involves attitudes of priesthood superiority. Is this to be found on Utah AM radio, Seth? I can only think that he has the “folklore” in mind, but I may be wrong. I am not a Lord…. yet.
Comment by Ronan — April 2, 2006 @ 11:16 am
Well I’ve been catching blurbs of Laura Ingram and Mr. Savage for a while and I’m sure I’m much stupider for it. I’ve also heard water-cooler type discussions that followed the same vein.
How about “High Inquisitor?” Has a suitably sinister ring to it.
Comment by Seth R. — April 2, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
What, exactly, is being said on those Republican radio shows that these remarks could possibly apply to them? What in the world is going on out there in Utah?
Comment by Jeff G — April 2, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
I dunno about Utah, but I’ve heard things (not often, and not publicly) that made my toes curl. That the missionaries should focus on finding white people to teach. That we wouldn’t want to live in the city because of the (insert really offensive disparaging slur about African Americans) there. And this from people with significant leadership positions.
After years of hearing nothing but…pablum (sorry, it’s the only word that works) from leaders, (tattoos? piercings? THIS is all God has for the leaders today to tell us?) I’m stunned (and delighted) that GBH would come out with something so very, very important.
Comment by Ann — April 2, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that I feel addresses this issue. It went something like this, “The problems of today cannot be solved by the minds who created them in the first place…” We need new leadership. I cant wait for the day that a modern day Mormon Martin Luther emerges in the ranks… Lets not hold our breath.
Comment by David — April 2, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Ronan,
There was some more irony after the prophet concluded his talk wnd we sang the closing hymn, Come, O, Thou King of Kings.
The last verse contains these phrases:
…While all the chosen race, their Lord and Savior own.
The heathen nations bow the knee…
Comment by Mark IV — April 2, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
As soon as he broached the subject, my heart started beeting quickly. I hoped for a condemnation of the pre-78 justifications for the ban, but I was delighted to hear what he did say. An astute observer sitting next to me noted that his comments were likely a response to the racial strife in Utah with the immigration protests (I.e., a comment on relationships with latin americans).
Comment by J. Stapley — April 2, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
Oh, J. that’s what I would like to hear. Boy, then I could go up and slap a couple of people in my ward who’ve been mad at me ever since I said that.
There hasn’t been that much racial strife in Utah, at least down south. An illegal alien was driving a car that killed a popular citizen a couple of weeks ago, but it was an accident. Actually the fault of the highway department.
Some have brought up his illegal status, but most people have been silent. A lot of people like the Mexican families down here. If I get to write for the paper, I’m going to defend them.
Comment by annegb — April 3, 2006 @ 8:38 am
I wouldn’t say Utah has much high-profile racial strife, but I can’t remember a day that has gone by without hearing someone use a derogetory term for a black or Mexican, or complain about the amount of such-and-such race being in Utah. Usually used in a phrase like “Layton is being ruined by the amount of Mexicans moving in”. Davis County has got to be a tough place to live if you aren’t upper middle-class white Mormon.
Comment by jjohnsen — April 3, 2006 @ 9:10 am
jjohnson,
You “can’t remember a day going by” without derogatory racial language or insinuations being made? Wow. I guess that shows how different things are when we hang out in different groups. I can’t remember the last time I heard either of the above (living in Provo and working at BYU) and yet you apparently hear it on a daily basis!
Comment by Frank McIntyre — April 3, 2006 @ 10:38 am
I thought at first that President Hinckley was referring to the controversy in Utah County over racial slurs at athletic events.
But I am puzzled by: “How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?â€
Comment by Justin — April 3, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Justin,
I join you in puzzlement. Who is saying this nowadays? What does he mean? I think Mormons out to know that racism is Bad; President Hinckley is referring to something specific here. If Stapley is right, is it that some people are suggesting that illegal immigrants be denied the priesthood? That still doesn’t make sense in the context here, though.
Comment by Ronan — April 3, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
As a Los Angeles resident and native I experience my share of ethnic and racial diversity. We were also inundated with a million person march denouncing proposed immigrant legislation. Some call it an annoyance that we’re faced with such realities… I on the other hand call it the “high cost of sunshine.”
Fortunately, and unfortunately for Utahn’s the LDS stronghold has kept much of the monied non-LDS property owners and buyers from wanting to relocate to certain parts of Utah. This unique social reality in my opinion keeps real estate values artificially low.
Salt Lake City still boasts having some of the most affordable real estate in the U.S. Why is that? I would argue the homegenity of race and religion is a strong deterrent to would be nonLDS outsiders. However, for immigrant hispanics it represents cheap housing and employment opportunity.
If the LDS church wants to boast about the growth of their numbers in Latin America then they should also embrace said converts to the Utah motherland. The problem for some is where will the put off, socially and ethnically bankrupt white citizens move to now? Welcome to the realities of 21st century globalization.
Comment by David — April 3, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
I think it’s both wise and useful to approach this by assuming that Hinckley intended his remarks as broadly as possible. This is wise because Hinckley didn’t delimit his condemnation of racism. But it’s also useful because racism is evil, and if an ambiguous statement can be made by social practice to exclude more, rather than less, evil, that has to be a good result.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — April 3, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
I think something to keep in mind is that we are a world-wide church (I don’t think any leader has proven that more than Pres. Hinckley) and it’s quite likely that his comments were not strictly motivated by Utah politics. Otherwise he would’ve written another letter to be read over the pulpits of Utah.
My husband served his mission in South Africa, and when he came home to discuss what he learned, his first thought was the Saints he had served there. He served 95-97, after aparteid had ended, and racism in their branches was a major major problem. Usually the blacks and indians didn’t live anywhere near the whites, but in the rare case they shared a congregation, he saw white members refuse any ordinance administered by a black member, including saying Amen at the end of a prayer.
Considering the riots that have been going on in France lately as well, it doesn’t seem to me that his comments are coming out of left field at all, but that they couldn’t be more timely.
Comment by Reese — April 3, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
I should say, “discuss what he learned at priesthood session,” not on his mission.
Comment by Reese — April 3, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
I don’t know if it has to do with my field of work, or just the area I live. Even my boss, who is in his wards bishopric, describes worker who are standing around as “acting like wetbacks”. When I mentioned at one time that I would prefer he not talk like that around me, he thought I was joking because he couldn’t understand what he had said wrong. I’ve heard people at ward functions make comments about the only thing Mexicans are good for is to make good tacos. Davis and Weber county have large populations of Latinos, maybe it’s a backlash toward that.
I’m a little suprised you’ve never heard anything like that. My brother has mentioned he was hassled quite a bit while attending BYU because a girl he dated was black. Lots of people making comments about mixing races and her being part of a cursed race. It made me think Provo was stuck in the 70′s. But then, maybe my brother and I are just hanging out in “different groups” than you are.
Comment by jjohnsen — April 3, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
I fully endorse the suggestion that President Hinckley’s remarks be interpreted as broadly as possible.
Nevertheless, this being the internet–the primary purpose of which is to spread rumors–I have one to spread about what might have been the proximate cause of President Hinckley’s evident displeasure. According to my brother-in-law, who lives in American Fork, there have been recent incidents at Provo High in which white LDS youth have victimized black and Hispanic students. He did not describe the incidents other than to characterize them as “shocking.” Has anybody else heard about this?
Comment by Last Lemming — April 4, 2006 @ 8:16 am
David, this is, admittedly, a threadjack. Please, I beg you, say one nice thing about the church so that I can believe that you are not merely a troll.
Comment by John C. — April 4, 2006 @ 9:00 am
John,
I dont mean for my comments to engender animosity or have my comments come across harsh or mean spirited… Whites in this country need to wake up that our “Leave it to Beaver” world is no more. The Brethren see the hand writing on the wall and they need to do more to wake everyone up to the realities of our 21st century globalization.
We cant just continue to send missionaries out to convert without also figuring out a way to assimilate with those cultures. We cant have our cake and eat it too.
The day will come when mixed marriages will be the norm and I cant wait to see a white GA with an African or African American wife or a member of the worldwide Relief Society leadership with an African male for a husband.
[edited]
Until that happens it is up to the rank and file to call the guilty unto repentance.
Comment by David — April 4, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
A few thoughts:
First the “Leave it to Beaver” world never was. It seems naive to think that especially people who were in their prime in the 50′s are that naive about it.
The issue of assimilation seems wrong. I think it wrong when Mormons think everyone ought assimilate to some American culture (which isn’t to dispute goods in that culture which may even be objectively necessary). But by the same token I think it dangerous to assume the Church ought assimilate to other cultures.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 4, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Wake up buddy… Assimilation will happen and is happening at a feverish clip here in society and will happen whether you like it or not or think in a bad idea. Just compare the youth of today from when we were growing up and what they’re influenced by versus our distractions.
Hip hop, inner city lingo, white kids wanting to be cool and black like the rap artist they admire. White suburban kids gravitate to the forgein because of the boring vacuous envirnments they’re forced to exist in.
The “Beaver” comment is representative of an ideal that many whites still long for and the resistance many people have toward painful change. Its why terms like “white flight” are now common place and used to describe the backlash caused by xenophobia and unwarranted fear.
Comment by David — April 5, 2006 @ 2:07 am
I mentioned in a previous post on my blog that my daughter was taught about the curse of Cain this year in Sunday School–in 2006, so I was definitely very happy to hear Pres. Hinckley’s comments on racism. That experience w/ my daughter and Sunday School led me to interview Darron Smith on my podcast last week about his experiences w/ the church, race and BYU.
Darron’s an interesting guy…and some of you may enjoy his story. He definitely holds strong, specific views, but I learned a lot from him.
Comment by John Dehlin — April 5, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Of course his BYU employment was terminated. Darron Smith is a casualty of what ails Mormondon. Skeletons need to stay in the closet and if Smith thinks he can quote from the historical record and shame the hierarchy into and apology and help shape public opinion he is bordering on the naive.
The Church does what is has to do to keep the status quo and if that means less people of color join then so be it. Its a house of cards and the whole revelatory history becomes suspect when current leadership shames or chastises the misguided policies which have ordered Mormon thought and opinion.
As ambitious and as morally correct as Darron Smith is in his attemp he is fighting a system bent on maintaining a mythology of God sanctioned behavior. If exacting a public apology is the end goal then Smith needs to marshall the support of the thousands who agree witih his views and find past Church directives as racist and unbecoming of a follower of Jesus Christ’s teachings.
Short of that he is nothing more than a modern day Don Quixote jousting Mormon windmills. God Bless Darron Smith and his efforts to call a so-called worldwide church unto repentance. Shame on the Mormon Leadership for failing to heed his cry to face up to its racist past and teachings. We can do better….
Comment by David — April 6, 2006 @ 2:41 am
Elder Richard G. Scott’s April 1998 Conference address is a good presentation of current policy regarding cultural “assimilation”. It seems to follow the general nature of President Hinckley’s recent comments.
Removing Barriers to Happiness
Elder Scott’s counsel –
“You do what is right. Don’t worry so much about what everyone else is doing. Certainly don’t justify departure from what you know is right because of others’ wrong choices.”
Making such assertions with the intent of general application of correct principles seems to be more consistent with the emphasis of President Hinckley’s priesthood session comments, which were apparently directed toward a broad general appeal, not in reference to any specific party or incident that I could discern.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 6, 2006 @ 10:58 am
David, can you accept that such an imperfect organization could also be ordained by God? Not the imperfect part, but the imperfect part is inevitable since we are an organization of human beings.
Progress is the important thing here, not perfection. We and our church are progressing. We won’t be perfect in this life.
Life aside from the Mormon Church is full of unfairness, inequities. We are doing our best, with God’s help. Why do you expect perfection?
Comment by annegb — April 6, 2006 @ 11:12 am
In my opinion Smith’s termination set BYU back several hundred years in its attempt to recruit and maintain African American students. It also has the possibility of emerging as a major PR boondoggle.
The message is, “Do not confront our racist past, particular would be Black scholars looking to work at our socalled institution of higher learning.”
There is a saying that unless history is understood and taught properly it leaves the door wide open to the possibilities of having it repeated. One need only look to the Jewish community and its academics, authors and movie producers to see that they will never let the memory of the holocaust die.
Last time I checked there are still survivors of that horrendous chapter in history. Try telling them it was an imperfect time and an imperfect German government that was just trying to get it right. Moreover, it was Black soldiers who came back from helping liberate such racism only to experience the “NOT WELCOME HOME DOOR MAT.” Last time I checked some of those people are still around as well,
Darron Smith isnt asking for perfection. Hes merely stating that progress is stunted and set back when an institution fails to admit and recognize its sins. The Church got the State of Missouri to apologize for its sins and legislation. The Jews I believe extracted a similar apology from the Catholic church for its complicity in Nazism.
An apology from the top and a concerted effort toward rewriting and educating away the racist teaching of the past not only endears and consoles members like brother Smith but potentially the millions of people of color worldwide who could become potential members.
Now that would be progress…
Comment by David — April 6, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
For those who would like some sort of a explicit repudiation of the theology used to justify the priesthood ban (and I count myself among this group), one thing to think about is how doctrinal change and repudiation actually happens. You need to have intermediate steps. Think about how this is progressing:
1. You have various pre-1978 policies that loosened racial restrictions on priesthood (these had to do with people of mixed race ancestry, mainly in Brazil).
2. You have increasing emphasis on international missionary work, which involves preaching to a mainly non-White world.
3. You have a the 1978 repudiation of the ban itself.
4. You have President Hinckley’s open statement about racial problems in the Church and his condemnation of racist attitudes.
In each of these cases, the next step consisted of an expansion upon the previous step. Change is not as sudden and discontinuitous as certain accounts of continuing revelation make it sound. If you are actually serious about wanting to get racist theology repudiated, then I think that Ronan is right: You should interpret President Hinckley’s statement in the broadest possible way as having already repudiated previous racial theology. That way, the next step is simply a clarification of what is already doctrine rather than a radical break with the past.
Comment by Nate Oman — April 6, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
I did not realize that Darron Smith is Jewish.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 6, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Wasnt he given a patriarchal blessing indicating his lost tribe status? What tribe did your blessing say you belonged to? What is actually being said when such pronouncements are given? Maybe we should as a Jewish Rabbi what he thinks of all of this…
Comment by David — April 6, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
PodrÃa decir que soy decendiente de los lamanitas, y escuché el discurso del Pte. hinckley, esto me trajo a la memoria el comportamiento de los “misioneros gringos” cuando estan con nosotros, y cuando estan entre ellos son muy distintos, orgullosos, frios, distantes……
nose….. somos razas distintas, pero ninguna es mejor que otra.
Luis
Comment by Luis — April 7, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
President Hinckley has a long-standing relationship with African American Mormons, inasmuch as he was one of three “junior apostles” to help organize the Genesis Group. (See http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org ). I know that he takes very seriously any reports of racist remarks. I see President Hinckley’s statements at the Priesthood session as a direct result of the love he has for Black Saints, though the implications certainly extend to Hispanic Saints and those of any other ethnic group who find themselves mistreated in a predominantly white society. En cuanto al comentario del Hno. Luis–I remember when I lived in Venezuela and had to let my daughter return to the States for some surgery. I was at a Chilean friend’s house, weeping. She said to me (in Spanish, of course), “I am surprised. You gringos seem so cold, but you do actually love your families just like we do.” I love the love I feel from and for my Hispanic brothers and sisters. I love the passion and joy I feel among my Black brothers and sisters. We all have great gifts to give to each other. Now if only we can recognize and value what is being offered…
Comment by Margaret Young — April 7, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
The history of severe racism in the LDS Church is not “folklore”, and it’s not just the “curse” in the BoM that makes up the basis for the public view of the Church as a bigoted organization, lets be honest. When the “prophet” who is supposed to be a Godly man and supposed to have a direct line from God, preaches and writes about how cursed preople of African decent are, it’s hard for blacks to ignore. The Church can backpedal away from racism in the present, but it will never be about to erase the past. Blacks are not going to flock to a church founded by bigots, no matter what the present-day church does or says to better it’s public image. They can only hope to gloss over the horrors or yesterday in order to make present-day (white and non-white) members more comfortable.
Comment by Christal Young — April 10, 2006 @ 10:06 am
To call the LDS policy towards black “the horrors of yesterday” is hyperbole and, I believe, does an injustice to blacks like Emmett Till, beaten to death at the age of 14 for speaking to a white woman. I don’t know the religion of those men, but they sure weren’t Mormons.
African Americans belong to, well, I would guess, every Christian church in the US and I bet every one of them has racists in their membership. I would also bet that very few Mormons participated in the lynchings and true horror that existed in the south, heck may still exist.
I don’t hear southern Baptists apologizing for the actions of the KKK, which are far more horrible than denying black men the priesthood for 100 years.
Glossing over racism does not please me, but making us sound like a bunch of murderers doesn’t either.
Comment by annegb — April 10, 2006 @ 11:31 am
Always a surprise to me, that some persistent and ambitious folks can contrive to get so much mileage out of yesterday’s “horrors”.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 10, 2006 @ 11:39 am
David – your SDS-style radicalism and extremism, while obviously well-intended, actually creates more problems than it solves. It empowers extremists on both sides and polarizes our population unnecessarily.
There’s a difference between teaching honest history vs. obsessing with historical injustices. We should always be alert for opportunities to correct erroneous history (unfortunately, Austria put David Irving in jail for trying to do this, but that’s Europe for you). However, if one keeps picking at a scab repeatedly, the wound never heals. The Revelation of 1978 solves the racial problem. When combined with our belief that anyone who could not get the Priesthood in this life through no fault of their own will be offered it in the next life, I don’t understand why you obsess with the Church’s racial past. This is not to be taken as a flame. but a legitimate question.
In the secular world, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed de juro segregation. Yet America’s white community continues to be relentlessly hectored about racism non-stop since that time. Forgive us if we’re getting a bit tired of hearing about it. If you wish to personally compensate others for past discrimination using your own time and your own resources, knock yourself out. But please don’t be quite so generous with everyone else’s time and resources.
Comment by Anchorage Activist — April 11, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
The reason I used the word “horrors” is a personal one. Brigham Young preached that any white woman who mixed seed with a black man should be stoned to death, and that this would always be so. As a white woman who happens to be married to and have children with a black man, I take personal offense at having my life threatened, so I appologise for letting my very personal opinion get in the way of a lovely discussion. I agree with the previous comment about there being racism in every church. Men, being only human, will always make mistakes. That is one thing, but to say the justification for bigotry comes from the Lord is another thing, in my very personal opinion. The past is the past, and we are instructed by the Bible to forgive mistakes of others. I was just trying to shed light on this facinating subject by giving my unique position of being a member of the Church, and wife of an African American.
Comment by Christal Young — April 11, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
You’re absolutely right AA with one stroke of the legislative pen back in 64 we fixed everything. God Bless Lyndon Johnson for making things right with the world.
I wish I could forward your comments to Rodney King and every other Black man who has been unjustly harrassed, maimed or defiled by our courts and systems of justice.
AA the Apostle of racial reasoning for all that ails the non-white world. Maybe you can contact Dave Chappelle. Youve got alot of useful material that can really aid a guy like him. Keep fighting the good fight AA. You’ll soon have us all at the mountain top of racial denial and understanding…
Comment by David — April 11, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
We have Brigham Young on record as saying a lot of bizarre things that are difficult to reconcile. I don’t have any way to ask him just what he was thinking, or to determine if the quotes are accurate, so I don’t lose much sleep worrying about it. I would prefer to extend the benefit of doubt to those who are not here to defend themselves personally.
If I use something that Brigham Young reportedly said as basis for my “horror”, how am I different from those who use Brigham to justify racism, or to justify any other practice or belief that is manifestly wrong?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 12, 2006 @ 9:52 am
Some of this discussion seems really substantive and interesting, but I join with those who express weariness at hearing the incessant charge of historical racism. When there are legitimate specific instances you can cite that affect you personally, I will sympathize about the injustice (and offer you two stories of my own for each of yours). I really don’t care for revisionist views of Brigham Young or others who are so long gone.
One of the most basic faults I find in this arguments has to do with the assertion that “organizations” are somehow racist. As far as I can parse it, this statement is nonsensical. Organizations are a virtual collective of people. If there was any element of racism to be found, it would be inherent in people, not in an “organization”, which is not even an entity in any real sense.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 12, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
“If I use something that Brigham Young reportedly said as basis for my “horrorâ€, how am I different from those who use Brigham to justify racism, or to justify any other practice or belief that is manifestly wrong?”
Response. Ok, so let me get this straight, so I can truely understand. It’s ok to use “something Brigham Young reportedly said” as basis for your faith (since he WAS one of the founders of the LDS faith), as long as you agree with his point of view. In fact, if you are LDS, you have agreed to do and think a lot of things based on what B.Y. did and thought, right? But when you are uncomfortable with his statements (Racism, Polygamy, the Adam-God theory, ect.), then all of a sudden the reports are incorrect or what he said doesn’t matter anymore? If it’s only when he was speaking/writing as a Prophet that you can consider him a reliable source, then the “touchy” subjects are still in play, since he preached on all of them (see the Journal of Discourses, a Church record of his sermons, if you doubt that– it will give you chill-bumps, I promiss!)
I really am confused here. Was Brigham Young a reliable source of information from/about God, or not? Are you saying we have to pick apart his teachings and keep what we like and chuck the rest? This is a much bigger question than racism, isn’t it? Either B.Y. was a prophet, meaning he had intimate knowledge of the Lord, and we should believe him, or he wasn’t , and we can’t. Since he said racism was of God, then, as a follower of his God, we should think racism is ok? Or did he only know about what God thought about stuff we are comfortable with? It seems to me that if you don’t believe in a God that thinks that I should be stoned to death for marrying a black man, you don’t believe in Brigham’s God. And if you are LDS, isn’t that worth thinking about? I sure do, I mean, my eternal soul is staked on the God I worship.
Comment by Christal Young — April 13, 2006 @ 11:28 am
I think your binary proach is insufficent, Christal. Could you not say the same about Moses or Joshua? Either God commands Genocide and the slaying of practicing homosexuals, or he doesn’t. The Bible is True or it isn’t.
We are all fallible but one, and he is Lord. Brigham recieved some light, but more importantly he recieved authority to govern the Church and administer the covenants and ordinances. God seems to allow for a great amount of fallibility among his chosen leaders…we should be greatful for this, or we would all be skrewed.
Proof texting is a child’s game. BY said so and so and there for such and such. The mature approach is one that considers the change in perspective. In the chaos, God’s hand is made manifest.
Comment by J. Stapley — April 13, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
All these points are debatable. Did Brigham Young receive authority or did he annoint himself at the expense of a chaotic environment that emerged after Smiths assasination? Im not complaining that Young ran the show. He marshalled the Saints in a very positive and productive direction. He was the law in the Utah territory so he could say whatever he wanted and get away with it. That aside, it doesnt insulate him from being examined and understood in light of his position.
He set the tone and environment that ordered the mentalities and positions of the membership and leadership for many years after his death. That we try to explain away or sweep under the rug his embarrassing comments and writings diminishes the stature of a man who did much to advance the West and the Faith all at the same time.
Comment by David — April 13, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
Sorry. I cannot believe you.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell, since you have recommended it to us, just how many times have you personally read through and studied the Journal of Discourses? You refer to it as the authoritative source for your “horror”, so we ought to know just how familiar you are with everything written therein.
Maybe you could provide a summary of who wrote the Journal of Discourses, and what subjects it covers.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 13, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Cristal, do you think other religions who are based in the south have completely shed their racism? Have you studied anything about Africa lately? Did you know that slavery still exists in Africa? Did you know that Africans routinely kidnap and sell each other as slaves?
The KKK is still an organization. What religion are most of its members? I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure it is NOT Mormon.
Slavery couldn’t have flourished without the help and encouragement of west Africans, who went inland and kidnapped those poor souls that American–and citizens of other countries–bought and shipped where there was a market.
You are wasting your valuable time and emotion on a non-issue. Instead, why don’t you donate your time and money to the relief effort in the Sudan? Or go to Mississippi, proclaim yourself a Mormon hater because Mormons are racist, and research the KKK for yourself—walk the walk, and find out how many Mormons are killing black people today.
I personally, for myself, repudiate my religion’s policies toward black men, which ended in 1978. I regret it, I hate it, I wish it had never happened, but it did. I’m absolutely positive that racist attitudes exist in my church and in every other Christian religion in the US. I repudiate them. The policy no longer exists. You need to check out the south and the religions of the south before you come after us. Are you attacking southern Baptists in the same way?
Comment by annegb — April 14, 2006 @ 9:13 am
I absolutely agree that many if not all the prophets in the Bible had human flaws and committed many sins. That is why the Bible makes it very clear when the man was acting on his own will, and when the man was acting on a command from the Lord, so we can discern what is from God, and what is not. And yes, I believe every word of the Bible, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I consider ALL of the scriptures found there the inspired Word of God, whether I agree with them personally or not. Can you do the same with Brigham Young? If so, no problem, I’m not on your case, I am just confused (whether you believe me or not) as to how one can believe in only part of something, yet believe it so deeply, while ignoring the other part. I can believe in a God that punishes the wicked and still love him. Can you believe B.Y. was a bigot and still honor him by following his faith? That’s the only question I respectfully ask, only asking for your considation and input as believers. How can we better get through our struggles than to ask for a hand up from our brothers and sisters?
As requested, here is some information about the Journal of Discourses. I have read much of the 26 Volumes, but obviosly with so much to read, I am still in the process of study. I am hoping only to gather information to make informed decisions about my eternal future. Thank you all for your patience.
One of the more popular collections of LDS sermons would be the Journal of Discourses. The Journal (also known as the JD, or JOD) was the dream child of an English convert named George D. Watt. Watt was a clerk for Brigham Young and was proficient in the art of Pitman shorthand. His skill led to his being commissioned by the church to faithfully record the words of conference sermons that would later be published in the church-owned Deseret News.
However, Watt wanted the messages of LDS leaders to go far beyond the limited subscribers to the Deseret News. His desire was given the blessing of the First Presidency who issued the following statement on June 1, 1853:
“Dear Brethren. — It is well known to many of you that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public sermons, discourses, lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward.
“Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.” [signed] BRIGHAM YOUNG, HEBER C. KIMBALL, WILLARD RICHARDS” (Messages of the First Presidency 2:119. This message is also found in the beginning of volume one of the JD).
The Journal began as a 16-page semi-monthly publication and though it was considered a private operation, it was produced in the LDS Church printing office in Liverpool, England. Today the JD comprises 26-volumes covering a period of around 35 years. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes that “in all, the collected Journal of Discourses contains 1,438 speeches given by fifty-five people, including Presidents of the Church, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the seventy, and sixteen other speakers. Brigham Young gave 390; John Taylor, 162; Orson Pratt, 127; Heber C. Kimball, 113; and George Q. Cannon, 111. Twenty-one people gave a single speech, and the rest gave from 2 to 66 speeches” (2:769).
When Watt first produced the Journal, there seemed to be no question that what was recorded was the actual words and beliefs of men chosen by God to lead his latter-day church. In his introduction to the first issue, Watt proclaimed, “It affords me great pleasure in being able to put in your possession the words of the Apostles and Prophets, as they were spoken in assemblies of the Saints in Zion, the value of which cannot be estimated by man, not so much for any great display of worldly learning and eloquence, as for the purity of doctrine, simplicity of style, and extensive amount of theological truth which they develop.”
For years Latter-day Saints were encouraged to purchase a set to enhance their understanding of Mormon truth claims. As late as March 21,1963, the church-owned Deseret Book placed an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune with a banner that read “The Voices of Prophets!” The ad was offering a set of the Journal for a discounted price of $100, telling members that they “should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration.”
That same year, Axel Andresen, the assistant manager of Deseret Book, firmly stood by the contents of the Journal when he responded to an inquiry made by a Mr. H.C. Combes of Lebanon, Oregon. Andresen wrote, “In having in your library the 26 volumes of the ‘Journals of Discourses’ (sic), you have a library containing the sermons of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church. If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about.”
Andresen went on to point out that “Deseret Book Company, being the only Church-owned book store, would not distribute literature on the Church, particularly anything as important as the Discourses of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church, without the approval of the Church” (Letter dated June 12, 1963).
Every volume of the Journal comes with a publisher’s preface, many of which go out of their way to inform the reader that what they are about to read is esteemed as truth. For example, the preface to volume two was written by Franklin D. Richards. He said, “The Second Volume of the Journal of Discourses needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth. It is made up of the choicest fruit that cWhen George Q. Cannon became a Journal publisher, he was a newly appointed apostle. He would later serve as counselor to Presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow. Few would doubt his loyalty to Mormonism or his understanding of LDS belief. In his preface to volume eight he wrote, “The Journal of Discourses ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of ‘the light that shines from Zion’s hill.’” an be called from the tree of knowledge, suited to the tastes of all who can appreciate such delicious food.”
Despite these accolades, we find that some of its biggest critics today are Mormons themselves. Many Latter-day Saints are quick to downplay its significance by insisting that the Journal is not “doctrine” or that much of its contents are nothing more than the mere opinions of the speakers.
Some Mormons have even argued that the sermons were inaccurately recorded. However, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes that in all, “twelve people reported sermons for the Journal of Discourses.” These included David W. Evans, an associate editor of the Deseret News. Evans succeeded Watt as the main reporter for the JD from 1867 to 1876. Another included George F. Gibbs, a man who held the position of secretary to the First Presidency of the Church for 56 years. Even one of Brigham Young’s daughters, Julia, is credited with recording one of her father’s sermons (2:769, 770).
It appears obvious that one of the reasons a Mormon may wish to distance himself from the Journal is because it contains information with which he may personally disagree. I too am glad that discerning individuals recognize that the Journal contains some bizarre notions that should not be believed. However, Mormons who hold to this conclusion cannot escape the fact that they are also being intellectually dishonest if they extol such spokesmen as prophets and apostles of God while being fully aware that they taught things that are considered blatant heresy by their church today. Sadly, that is the double standard many Latter-day Saints choose to employ.
If LDS leaders really feel that the Journal is unreliable they need to quit quoting it and admit to their members that Mormon prophets are quite capable of leading the church astray. The fact that the church has yet to offer an official statement denouncing the Journal also tends to speak volumes.
Comment by Christal Young — April 14, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Thanks for the summary. Now I think we can better see where you are coming from.
Although I was rather hoping that you could provide a more honest response, something that you wrote yourself, perhaps the source you apparently lifted this text from is just as revealing of what you really know about the Journal of Discourses and the church.
In fact I could not help noticing that your “summary” bears remarkable similarity to the contents of a web page hosted by people who call themselves “Mormonism Research Ministry” at this link. I suspect this is not coincidental.
The source page claims to be authored by someone who identifies himself as “Bill McKeever”, a well-known anti-mormon. Perhaps, if you copy from someone else’s work, you ought to give proper attribution. You can find some helpful guidelines here.
Now I am wondering, could this also your source for the “horrors” you ascribe to Brigham Young? And I am curious if you intend to ever actually read the Journal of Discourses yourself some day, or if you just read snippets of it from this anti-mormon web site?
If you’re still interested, you can find the entire text of the Journal of Discourse on line at this link. Very convenient, you need not go to the expense of purchasing the 26-volume set. Admittedly, this material is not condensed or derived like the pre-packaged sound-bites so often quoted by anti-mormons. But at least, if you were to take the time to read it yourself, you could make honest claims about having done so.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 14, 2006 @ 10:37 am
While I believe you have failed to establish respect or credibility with your comments, perhaps you would care to read something of Brigham’s philosophy on this, recorded in the Journal of Discourses, 4:75.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 14, 2006 @ 12:34 pm