For the dead, both their words and acts live on, and in all cases, their words and acts were a mix of good and bad.

There are some things that simply **must be emphasized**. See, the lazy person’s bold print.

(Of course, as an admin here, I then take the other easy way out and edit it from within the system – where I have the classic highlighting options available to me. Neener, neener, neener!)

It true we do frequently hear ideas suggesting that racial inequality in the church was ordained of God. I guess the question is, what do we make of such explanations? There are a number of ways to approach such a question. For me I tend to look at the issue by examining the distinction between theology and ideology. To what extent is political or other ideology present in the explanations, descriptions and beliefs of church leaders and members when it comes to the issue of racial inequality? When reading available materials from the civil rights era we do see that statements supporting the priesthood ban, or that advocate against intermarriage, etc. often rely on white supremacist ideas to make their case. So if something like the priesthood ban was ordained of God, and church leaders had a direct understanding of this, why did they rely so heavily upon white supremacist ideas to justify their thinking and make their arguments? Why was there not a better theological case to be made independent of such a specific ideological construction? One can answer this question in different ways requiring varying degrees of complexity.

A more contemporary example: What do we make of language in current church materials that discourages marriages between people of different races?

It may be important to point out that many churches found theological justification of racists views, policies and actions. But over time the majority of them have stated that their previous views did indeed represent the desire to find a theology that endorsed the widely held prejudices of the day. Obviously, what is unique in the Mormon context is the continued assertion that racial bias was not ideological at all. But I have to ask what is more ideological than using difference for the sake of degradation? In some ways this is a defining move of ideological thinking. Its also an aspect of pharaiseeism that Christ continually challenged.

#73: Is it okay to call Lincoln a racist?

One of the things that this thread has pointed out is that when it concerns 19th century attitudes towards race it can be challenging to make distinctions based on how we think of these issues today. Another way to consider Lincoln might be to say that he was indeed a racist, but saying so is not an act of condemnation. Rather it acknowledges a certain structure of thought while also acknowledging that he couldn’t be defined by his racism, and further, he had a vision, the potential of which, far exceeded whatever his limitations may have been. It seems to me that white folks insisting on seeing our heroes only as heroes is a source of continued frustration for black historians, activists and teachers. As I understand their view, it is that we can and should celebrate the achievements of Lincoln and Jefferson, etc, but we should also acknowledge understand the fullness of their thought and actions which were not exclusively heroic or easily understood by todays conceptual framework.

AS TO THE BIGGER QUESTION OF “WHY FOLLOW A FALLIBLE PROPHET?”, CONSIDER THAT EACH PROPHET HAD PARTICULAR GIFTS. WILL WE REFUSE TO HONOR BRIGHAM YOUNG, WHO WAS A REMARKABLE COLONIZER AT PRECISELY THE TIME WHEN THE TALENTS OF LEADERSHIP AND EVEN STUBBORNNESS WERE REQUIRED, BECAUSE HE HADN’T TRANSCENDED THE “WICKED TRADITIONS” OF HIS TIME? SHOULD I BE ALLOWED TO TEACH ENGLISH AT A UNIVERSITY IF I CAN’T DO ALGEBRA? SHOULDN’T EDUCATED PEOPLE ALL BE ABLE TO DO ALGEBRA?

I hear what your saying hear in that we can’t be masters in all that we do and we can still be competent in a number of important things.

And I can see prophets can be fallible and are just humans. But this isn’t a light issue where many would say if this is Gods True Church he can certainly make it clear to his prophet that what you are doing is equivalent to Genocide to all the souls of a different race for well over a 100 years. I think we all feel comfortable with prophets being fallible and over looking petty issues but this is a biggy.

I also see and understand the ramifications of what could happen to the church if it was addressed in a general conference.

and then I saw all the capital letters and I got confused.

Is that as negative as one should be? Is it appropriate (or counterproductive) to label these as racist statements, while still maintaining that the church is not racist?

I’m having a problem with your use of the present tense here, and also with semantics. The church is an institution and so would not have an attitude itself. Its leaders, however, have (by standards we would use today) taught racist ideas, and the policies they enacted in the ideas, and the policies they enacted in the 1850s and again in 1908 were racialist. To the extend that we still preach anything like the concept that God has a caste system (See “Mormon Doctrine”, then we are still supporting racism. Keeping books on the shelves like Mo Doc and Joseph F Smith’s “Answers to Gospel Questions” which still include appalling ideas about race would indicate that we are permitting racism to continue.

In #73: Is it okay to call Lincoln a racist?

Nope. His actions changed the world. In the same way that the woman in the NT who “loved much” was forgiven of her sins–which were “many”, so Lincoln has earned a place outside the black hole of racism. Give that man a planet.

As to the bigger question of “Why follow a fallible prophet?”, consider that each prophet had particular gifts. Will we refuse to honor Brigham Young, who was a remarkable colonizer at precisely the time when the talents of leadership and even stubbornness were required, because he hadn’t transcended the “wicked traditions” of his time? Should I be allowed to teach English at a university if I can’t do algebra? Shouldn’t educated people all be able to do algebra?

I think you ask good questions. If we say that Brigham Young was a man of his times, does that not suggest the priesthood ban was also a product of its time? And if so, was it from God or from society?”

Many members think this had to happen so the church would grow and it was inspired!!

But it throws out the following questions:

So God had to become a bigoted for awhile for the Church to grow and our undeveloped minds are not privy to or capable of understanding the complexities of this. But it will all be revealed later on just put it on the shelf.

Is God progressing and finding his way like we are?

Wouldn’t God be telling Brigham in no uncertain terms – this is wrong , stop it at once- you silly man , how do you expect to get further light and knowledge when your being mean to my children?

If it is wrong and the Prophets are fallible on sometimes big issues – what makes the church different to any other- why follow it?

If they can’t discern what’s right and wrong what hope do we have?

It is my understanding that Lincoln actually supported segregation. He really wanted to ship all the slaves to Liberia, and rid the United States of them. This doesn’t sound so enlightened, does it?

Margaret makes the case that if Joseph had lived longer, then perhaps there would have been no priesthood ban. I tend to agree. Even if Joseph hadn’t been killed, there would still have been a backlash. Remember that part of the Mormons persecution in Missouri was due to the fact that Mormons were viewed as abolitionist in a slave state. As a result the Mormons were forced to say they weren’t abolitionist, just to try to maintain peace in Missouri. Allowing blacks the priesthood would have been seen as problematic by the slave states, so the Mormons were forced to walk an impossible tightrope on this issue. I suspect part of Brigham’s reasoning for allowing slavery in Utah was to appease Southern feelings. The Union hadn’t treated the Mormons with kindness, and I suspect he was hedging his bets. If the Confederacy won the Civil War, and treated Mormon better, I can see Brigham wanting to join with the South. I don’t condone Brigham’s actions, but I think it does explain some of the reasons for his actions.

Let’s not forget that Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young all agreed that it wasn’t right for the Northern States to dictate slavery laws to the Southern States. All would have kept slavery in order to keep the Union in tact (though Joseph had a plan for selling public lands to free the slaves in his presidential platform.) Once the Civil War started, Lincoln was able to act more in line with his conscience, because the Union was no longer in tact, but he was very much in favor of the slavery status quo prior to the Civil War.

Holden in 94–I agree.

Jeff in 95–there is a few speeches from Pres Kimball from the 1950′s addressing racism that were very progressive in the special features of Margaret’s DVD. Not only are they the sort of things we would hope and expect to hear from our leaders, but it was interesting to listen to Pres Kimball’s voice when it wasn’t so raspy from the throat surgery. I think Pres Kimball’s feelings from the 1950′s often get overlooked by people looking for inflammatory comments from church leaders, rather than positive comments on race. Pres Kimball’s comments on race are very much in line with our modern sensibilities on the issue of race.

You are right – if I compared the statements to those of Southern religious leaders they would probably be very similar. I guess I expect more from Brigham Young because he was a Prophet. But that could be where I ere.

92. Kari

I think you ask good questions. If we say that Brigham Young was a man of his times, does that not suggest the priesthood ban was also a product of its time? And if so, was it from God or from society?

I think a more remarkable thing was the progressive Church Leaders that fought against this sort of thing, David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown and, ultimately Spencer W. Kimball. I am sure there are some others I might not realized. Margaret probably knows that much better.

It would seem to me that God would want equality and justice before society wants it, not after, which seems to be the case with societal issues since the Restoration.

Also, “the people aren’t ready for it” argument re: blacks & the priesthood is so lame. We aren’t ready to keep all the commandments either, but that doesn’t stop the admonition.

Kari, I have no doubt Lincoln was pandering, but that doesn’t mean BY wasn’t also pandering – to his own and others’ basest instincts.

Frankly, I agree with Margaret and MH that if you want to find alarming racist rhetoric, look to statements made by some of the most conservative church leaders in the 1950s.

I have to admit, I don’t really understand this. One of the things I frequently heard with regards to the priesthood ban specifically, and racial inequality in general, was that these things were ordained of god and would only be changed when god decided it was time to change them, not when society wanted them changed. I’ve also heard the same arguments with regards to the ERA and SSM.

So if the leaders of the church really did believe that the races were not equal, and that god didn’t want blacks to hold the priesthood, where did they get such ideas? Do we really think that if BY hadn’t been so adamant about it there would have been a precedent that church leaders felt they needed to follow until changed by revelation? So, if we believe that our prophets are led and directed by god why are statements made since the 1950s more troubling than those made by BY, when those statements are consistent over time and god didn’t make a change until 1978? It seems to me we should only be troubled by statements made after 1978.

“My main point is writing off Brigham Young’s statements as him being a man of his time is inaccurate (to me). When I compare them to other derogatory statements, such as the Abraham Lincoln quote shared, I see a clear contrast between the cultural norm, and Young’s over-the-top racial views. Sure, I will concede that his racial views were influenced by his culture but even comparing them to Joseph Smith’s statements I see Young having a personal disdain for African-Americans.”

I think you are misconstruing the cultural “norm” of the time. Why are you so sure that Lincoln’s views were reflective of any kind of broad norm? If they did then the civil war and its aftermath would be more difficult explain. I suggest that at that time there was no broad cultural agreement. Views were widely divergent and appear to include many examples of thought far more hostile and violent than Lincoln’s. Be that as it may, I agree with MY in that statements from Church leaders made less than 50 years ago are far more troubling.

Don’t you think that the statement of Lincoln might be more vote pandering that actual personal opinion? It was said in a political debate while he was trying to get himself elected. Are there other similar statements from him, particular after he was elected, that would support the view that he truly believed in inequality? When I read Team of Rivals I came away with the impression (possibly Doris Kearns Goodwin’s bias) that Lincoln did not necessarily believe in such inequality.

I’m with DrewE on this. In my opinion, the political statement of Lincoln is a far cry from the statements of BY, who for all intents and purposes, was acting and speaking as a prophet of god. The totality of BY’s statements really does paint him as a man who believed in the complete inequality of the races, the superiority and “electedness” of caucasians, and would have not been unhappy to see slavery continue.