“In LDS theology, we talk about ‘redeeming the dead.’ I think at least a portion of this means that we undo their errors and create a better world on the foundation–but also the ruins–of what they’ve left to us. Sometimes, we simply rearrange the ruins like a puzzle which makes a different kind of sense in a different kind of world. They bequeath both a legacy and a burden–and we are called to responsibility.”

I love this perspective on redeeming the dead, and I pray that my own descendants will redeem me in exactly this manner. To do so, they will have to see me as redeemable, even if some of my beliefs seem ignorant (or even abominable) in the lens of 20/20 hindsight 150 years later. I pray they use that hindsight charitably and realize I was doing the best I could with what I knew, just as they will be doing as they look back at me and forward to the judgment of their own descendants.

I’ve already stated that Brigham Young was a product of his age. However, being a product of an age is no excuse because the principles we (including Brother Brigham) supposedly espouse are supposed to be universal principles that override the cultures and beliefs of one period of time. “All men are created equal” is a radical, or shall we say extreme, concept to traditional Christianity of the time which held that all men were NOT created equal, and that God had punished certain races because some dude long ago killed his brother. Did we all truly come to this world with no mark against us? Margaret Young relates that Elder Holland was strongly against such a thought:

As recently as last week, I heard from a missionary in the Congo that Elder Holland (who dedicated Cameroon on Aug. 20) had emphatically rebuked the idea that Blacks were fence-sitters in the pre-existence.

It’s nice to see that even Brigham Young didn’t think this way. According to Wilford Woodruff’s Journal:

December 25, 1869: I attended the School of the Prophets. Many questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said no they were not. There were no neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides. He said if anyone said that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirits of the Blacks were neutral in heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary. All spirits are pure that come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he commit[ted] murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam except the sons of perdition.

Joseph Fielding Smith, however, adds to the problem in Doctrines of Salvation by stating:

NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits

Huh? What exactly are you meaning President Smith? And of course Elder McConkie messes it up even further:

Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin…but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate

Of course Elder McConkie later added:

Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world

Maybe he should not have spoken at all if he didn’t actually know…I wonder if President Hinckley ever got to ask this question (which he asked in 2006) of Bruce R. McConkie:

“How can any man holding the Melchizedek priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for that priesthood, but that another, who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?”

I have to be harsh on Brigham Young, on Joseph Fielding Smith, on Bruce R. McConkie. 1. If they don’t truly know, they should not speak emphatically about a subject. Simply saying “I don’t know” works quite well. 2. As prophets and Apostles, they cannot excuse themselves based on the times in which they live. They know quite well that their words have power, influence and meaning.

Anyways, I’ve said all I want to say on the subject.

And just getting revelation does not magically remove you from the reality of the context you live in.

I still don’t see how that excuses Brigham Young, born and raised and educated in America after Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” language.

That’s true of the majority of kids who have lived and died on this planet.

Self-actualization is a relatively recent luxury.

I thought Dan’s answer to my question about what kinds of imperfections prophets are allowed to have to be quite ironic: The same type of imperfections we all have. Well, we’ve come a long way in race relations since the Civil War, but we still have a long way to improve. As such, if we have problems with racism, why wouldn’t a prophet? I’ve detailed some racist actions in the Bible in some of my previous posts. I’m not trying to excuse prophets racist ways, but it is interesting that God called racist prophets such as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Jonah. It doesn’t excuse Brigham, but it does put him in some interesting company.

I just think there was a great big difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Dan, I absolutely agree with you here. In my studies on the priesthood ban, it seems to me both Joseph and Brigham were actually quite progressive with regards to race prior to Joseph’s death in 1844. I did a post on Early Black Mormons, that showed that Brigham probably baptized Joseph T Ball, a black Mormon in 1832. Ball was Branch Pres from 1844-45 in Boston. You’re probably aware of Elijah Abel, was good friends with Joseph Smith. Brigham was also well acquainted with Walker Lewis, a black Mormon in Massachusetts. (All 3 of these held the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to Joseph’s death.)

The turning point point for Brigham seems to be when Enoch Lewis and William McCary (both of whom held the MP as well) married, or tried to marry white women around 1846, 2 years after Smith’s death. As you know, pre-Civil War Americans thought inter-racial marriage was a major no-no. Brigham excommunicated McCary for unauthorized polygamy, and seems to have formulated the priesthood/temple ban around this time, which happens to be about the time most of his famous racist quotes come from.

Darius Gray documents the following,

On Mar 26,1847, Brigham Young made a statement that he was aware of Walker Lewis, and aware that Walker held the priesthood. Young claimed on this date that there is no race-based ban. The statement is “its nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have to repent [and] regain what we [h]av[e] lost. We [h]av[e] one of the best Elders–an African in Lowell [i.e. Walker Lewis].”

Connell O’ Donovan documents this: By December 1847, he’s completely changed his mind. Now he calls for Enoch and Matilda Lewis and their mixed-race child to be killed for breaking “the law of God.”

Perhaps I can interest you in Brigham pre 1847?

I did another post on Joseph Smith’s presidential platform, where he proposed freeing all slaves in the US by selling public lands. Do I wish Brigham had followed Joseph’s lead here? Absolutely, and I stated that several times on my priesthood ban post. However, much of the controversy Joseph stirred up in Missouri was because of his abolitionist stance, and I believe that his slavery views had more to do with his assassination than we credit. Perhaps Brigham Young was reacting to this. As you mentioned before, Brigham had his own polygamy battles to fight, and since slavery was legal in the US pre-Civil War, it was probably one less battle to fight. If I had my druthers, I wish he’s have dumped polygamy, and fought slavery.

Thanks for sharing. I again blame the cyber-word on the computer screen for not showing the true inflection behind my words. My blood level is not raised while talking about this topic. Try to picture me talking about the weather drinking a nice cup of tea sitting in a comfortable chair in a favorite park. I’m not trying to raise anyone else’s blood levels.

“Nuance As a Product of Peace” http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/08/nuance-as-product-of-peace.html

dan, what types of imperfections is a prophet allowed to have?

That’s a great question. I think members of the church from top down have grappled with this from the start. My view? The same type of imperfections we all have. I just think there was a great big difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The former didn’t let the ignorance of his age trap him in that same ignorance, while the latter never truly bothered to learn more. I don’t think Joseph Smith understood the true depth of what it meant that all men were created equal, but I think it burned in him more than it did in Brigham Young. Who knows, I may be giving Joseph Smith more credit on the issue of blacks. I know that the belief that blacks are descendants of Cain did not originate with him but was an aspect of Protestantism for a couple hundred years prior to Joseph. But I don’t know what Joseph said to dispel that ignorant thought. Look, in terms of prophetic imperfections, I think President Gordon B. Hinckley was wrong to be supportive of the war in Iraq in his War and Peace talk in April 2003. Does that mean I don’t think he is a prophet, just because I think he was wrong about something? Not at all. Holding any religious leader—even down to bishops and elders quorum presidents—to the standard of perfection is just plain silly and unrealistic. Being called of God and approved by his brethren around him, a prophet has a mantle that is his until the Lord sees fit to take it away from him or the Apostles openly question the ability of the prophet (not happened yet, but not out of the realm of possibility). Today’s prophets are much more careful with what they say publicly than previous generations, and for good reason. It distracts from the more important aspects. It is one of the reasons why I am disinterested in learning more about Brigham Young: his racist views distract greatly from caring about the guy. They undermine, at least for me, the other things he has to say.

your harsh rhetoric toward Brigham far outweighs any harsh rhetoric toward murdering Indians.

Dude, the murdering Indians doth not excuse the ugly racism. It’s like saying, Bush may have been bad, but he was no Hitler. It’s like, well, DUH!

which is why seth and I wonder why the balance is missing from your comments.

Your post is titled “A Case for Slavery.” Your main thesis is that particular quote that Brigham said, that it was fortuitous that the Lord gave the Mormons this opportunity to save children whilst turning them into white delightsome people. That’s no case for slavery. It’s from one servitude to another. Those children never got to be who they really were. That’s no case for slavery. It never was.

We all know that God allows pretty crappy things to happen.

I think you need to ask yourself why having a prophet in the room should change that norm and how much it should change it.

Amen. I don’t think this point is extreme or unreasonable at all.

When we are talking about what God wants us to do, I don’t think you can play the this-era-that-era card. Theoretically, God is calling us to evolve to the standards of the ultimate era, the Celestial Kingdom. According to doctrine, we are judged for our sins against God’s standards, not the primitive standards of our current culture and time. The era may explain why humans do things in groups which later seem uncivilized, but it does not explain how a guy can receive revelation for the church from God but not receive revelation that his own teachings are not in harmony with God’s laws.

What kinds of imperfections can prophets have? Crimes of passion, like losing your temper, or being too quick to judge, etc. things that happen in moments too quickly to apply your better self. Terrible, false, evil things spoken from the pulpit seem like things that God wouldn’t want His prophet doing. Its like an employee. He might be generally really good at his job and you like him personally, but if he keeps saying terrible things to the press, dragging your reputation down and damaging your business… you have to fire him, right?

When you shift the indictment from Brigham in order to justify him as a prophet, you only shift it onto God. i.e. Maybe Brigham was a legitimate prophet, but then that makes God someone not very cool to me. Racism is an acceptable flaw for a prophet of God, given his era? I wonder how that sounds to all the black saints who lived before 1978?

I must agree with Ray. on the internet we only see what you’ve written, not what you mean. your harsh rhetoric toward Brigham far outweighs any harsh rhetoric toward murdering Indians. While I sympathize with you on Brigham’s racial views, until your most recent comments you haven’t been harsh toward murder, which is why seth and I wonder why the balance is missing from your comments.

This is what I said in comment #6, which was my second comment:

He was a good prophet, and he did much for building the structure of Mormonism, but I will probably find his views on race contemptible for the foreseeable future.

Funny that.

In a forum like this, all we have to measure are the words we type on the screen – so how we get viewed is a direct result of those words. If you believe Brigham was a prophet, it’s better to say that right at the beginning and THEN, without hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric, discuss the problems you see with his attitudes and actions. That would have avoided much of the misunderstanding here.

Can you see that?

Black-and-white, unforgiving demands of prophetic infallibility are perhaps the most consistent DEFINING factor I find in ex-Mormons

Have my views gotten so under your skin that you continue to press this? When have I ever pressed for prophetic infallibility? I certainly demand a certain level of human understanding from a prophet, but I certainly don’t expect him to be perfect. Furthermore, I still believe Brigham was the Lord’s prophet in spite of his racist views. What ex-Mormon believes this way, Seth?

Maybe I should be an ex-Mormon. Clearly I don’t feel included much.

The internet continues to fail to show what is truly meant by the words on the printed screen. If you read my words in a certain tone, they would sound extreme, but they really are not. Now, in terms of my thoughts on Brigham Young, you stating that I should consider his actions in light of the actions of the Indians is not fair. Of course Brigham’s actions are the lesser of two evils, but that doesn’t excuse Brigham’s blatant ugly racism. It seems you put these kinds of items in, like the bashing of the head of the child to say, “see, these guys were so bad that Brigham was truly a saint by saving those Indian kids and turning them into white delightsome people.” I cannot accept that.

I’m glad to see there is some moderation in you.

I’ve always been moderate. What I am, however, is non-traditional.

And finally, let’s get the monkey off my back. This post is not about my views, or my character, or how I think about things.

You asked, “Did they actually kill their slaves in front of Mormons? ”

Yes, I quoted the book in the original post above: “Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body toward us telling us we had no hearts or we would have saved its life.”

You going after Brigham in spite of my opening post illustrating this atrocity shows that you’re more interested in attacking Brigham than speaking out against murder. That is extreme. By most of your comments prior to 41, you ignored the murderous Indian and lambasted Brigham. One could conclude that you felt that Brigham was worse than a murderous Indian. Certainly you have not expressed the same outrage against this Indian as you did Brigham. Your taunt to Seth, “Redeem Brigham Young for me” when Brigham instructed his followers to purchase these Indians in order to save their lives is another example of your extreme views.

You acknowledge that Jefferson and Washington had good qualities, and you seemed to imply that they deserve to be honored on our money, in spite of their racist ways. Your statement, “I am that disinterested in George Washington and Thomas Jefferson when it comes to race relations” leads one to conclude that you believe their racists views overshadow their contributions to our nation. Apparently this is not what you believe, as you clarified this in 41, but prior to this it appeared to me that you were so disgusted with their racists ways that they weren’t worth honoring. As such, I wanted to see how extreme you were. I’m glad to see there is some moderation in you. Perhaps you could moderate your tone somewhat–I don’t think I’m the only one who thought you felt that racism overshadowed Jefferson, Washington, and Young’s accomplishments.

Sure it is Dan.

Black-and-white, unforgiving demands of prophetic infallibility are perhaps the most consistent DEFINING factor I find in ex-Mormons. And I’ve encountered quite a few of them. The echo of their comments in your comments was quite disturbing.

You asked if I thought we should remove Jefferson and Washington from our money. I dismissed that because that is an extreme response. I keep telling you, I’m not an extremist. I may dislike their racist ways, but my only response is to not be interested in their personal lives. And yet that is considered extreme. Help me understand why your recommendation that we remove their names from our money is not extreme, yet stating that I’m not interested in their personal lives IS extreme…

Do I have to condemn the Indians for killing their slaves? No problem. They’re wrong for killing slaves. They’re wrong to have slaves in the first place.

Did they actually kill their slaves in front of Mormons?

Your comparative silence seems that Brigham’s racism is worse than murder of these innocent Indian slaves.

Were I in Brigham’s shoes, would I have also purchased those kids to save their lives? Of course. Would I have done it to try and turn them white and delightsome? That’s my real problem with this situation. Your post is titled “A Case for Slavery” trying to show that slavery could be turned into doing something good, where bad things would have otherwise happened. But the rationale used by Brother Brigham undercuts the argument. He’s not actually freeing those Native American kids. He’s doing this to turn them white, because as Indian, they are filthy in his eyes. That is reprehensible and I’ll always believe that.

I thought you would laugh at the communist comment. You know, me, Democrat, hippie socialist commie… would think better of Brigham if he showed communist tendencies, or at least anti-Capitalist tendencies. Sheesh, it was in jest dude.

My contempt for Brigham is strong because I keep hearing more and more stories that disturb me. Yes, he did a great job leading the saints across the plains, got the church and saints well organized in Salt Lake, oversaw the building of the wonderful Salt Lake temple, and so on. But he had a dark side, and I’m troubled by his dark side. I would have a really tough time if he were the prophet today and he said the things he believed back then. I don’t think the Lord had a better person to deal with the moving of the saints across the plains than Brother Brigham. But I’m not going to go hang out with the guy for root beers on a Saturday night.

So, no I’m not an extremist. And I’m a little bothered that by simply disagreeing with you on most of your defenses of Brigham Young, you respond with attempting to discredit my views by labeling them as extremist.

“wow, I didn’t think my opinion of Brigham Young could worsen, but it does.”

“yes, I am that disinterested in George Washington and Thomas Jefferson when it comes to race relations,”

You never did answer why we shouldn’t remove the racists Jefferson and Washington from our money. Perhaps that is your attempt at moderation, but it seems that racism trumps all other evils. You never condemned the Indians for killing their slaves in front of the Mormons. Your comparative silence seems that Brigham’s racism is worse than murder of these innocent Indian slaves.

You have never given Brigham any credit for anything good, and your sarcastic comments comparing him to a communist make you sound as if he did nothing good at all. Your vitriol of him far outweighs anything good you’ve said about him, and seems far from balanced. Yes your contempt for Brigham is extreme.

I agree that his racist views are a problem, but not to the extreme you have made it out to be.