English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have read several comments by LDS/Mormons on here saying that it was okay for BY to be racist because that's the way things were back then, or that it was socially acceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, according to LDS beliefs, God told Joseph Smith to stop drinking and smoking, which was also "socially acceptable" at the time. Wouldn't God tell his "prophet" to stop being racist? Since when did the LDS/Mormon church do anything that is/was socially acceptable? Aren't y'all supposed to "Be in the world and not of the world?" Wouldn't that extend to Brigham Young too?

2007-05-14 16:02:31 · 18 answers · asked by Her 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

I like that everyone is agreeing with my point so far. Kind of telling how no LDS/Mormons have been able to come up with anything truly legitimate yet. Probably furiously searching an LDS apologetics webside looking for a decent argument.

2007-05-14 16:13:32 · update #1

18 answers

You don't knock family and Brigham is in most of their family trees which is a great source of pride for them. Besides when their white-shirted, tie wearing missionaries go out on their missions how could they recruit new members if they told the truth about their beginnings under Smith and Young. I doubt that they talk objectively, if at all, about the Mormon Wars in Missouri and Utah. And they sure don't want to talk about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857 where 120 California-bound men, women and children, promised safe passage through Mormon territory if they surrendered their weapons, were slaughtered by the Mormon militia after the emigres turned over their weapons. How could anyone justify the mass murder of men, women and children?. 120 people shot in the head and in the back.by Mormon militia NOT Indians. True religion is not based on the words of false prophets nor does it make excuses or condone the bad behavior of its leaders and members - past or present.

2007-05-14 17:56:42 · answer #1 · answered by cwomo 6 · 5 1

Yes. And to be totally honest I don't like Brigham Young not even a little bit. Gosh, just because he was a "prophet" it didn't make him an alien or something and I'm 100% sure that many of the things he did were NOT inspired by God, he made his personal decisions and abused of his power. I know he was a big part of church history and everything, but I can't lie, the dude was very messed up. And no, this doesn't make me a Jack Mormon, it's my opinion based on the things he really did. I don't know if it's OK for church members to admit this, but I bet that you said it in a talk at sacramental you would automatically become the black sheep of your ward.

2016-05-18 03:57:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The fact that racism might have been socially acceptable does not make it right. I am a Latter-day Saint. My beliefs are intertwined with Brigham Young's but that does not mean that I agree with everything he ever did. That he was racist and that anyone has ever been or ever will be racist flies in the face of everything our Savior stands for.

Don't got making it a "Mormon" issue though. Because prophets are still people - NOT God incarnate.

2007-05-15 03:49:21 · answer #3 · answered by socmum16 ♪ 5 · 2 1

I don't believe he was racist. I think that what he said then, by today's standards, is racist, but back then, before PC, it wasn't considered racist.

God didn't tell Joseph Smith to stop smoking and drinking.

D&C 89:1 A Word OF Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

This says that even the weakest person should be able to follow the Word of Wisdom. But, back then, it wasn't something that was rigidly enforced. But, I bet it was followed more than people think.

2007-05-15 08:43:48 · answer #4 · answered by mormon_4_jesus 7 · 1 1

I'm willing to bet there are more that a few LDS out there who are astonished and dismayed that the former prophets and apostles made such hostile and hurtful statements. There are even more who claim it's all anti-mormon literature, and wouldn't read it if the Ensign magazine was shoved under their nose. There are some who still wholly embrace the doctrine as "right and true"

I have to laugh at anyone who tries to defend these holy bigots by saying "It was just their opinion.." since they apply that reasoning to all the controversial aspects of the church teachings. These guys are supposed to be prompted by the holy spirit; you don't get to be a General Authority by winging it. You tow the party line or get 'ex'd'

Here's my point: If you claim that you believe in the Book of Mormon as the word of god with all your heart, you've made your claim to 'racial purity'. If you believe that the words spoken at temple dedications by prophets who claim the "Lamanites skin is getting lighter..", then you have some serious ethno-socio issues hiding under the banner of mormonism.

If god is so damn helpful, couldn't he give the prophets a cure for cancer or other diseases?

Naw, he's too concerned whether you drink coffee or not.

2007-05-15 10:34:40 · answer #5 · answered by Dances with Poultry 5 · 3 3

Better yet, why was Joseph Smith allowed to marry a 14 year old in the temple and steal Mormon men's wives in temple marriages???
You have to realize, Brigham Young was in Utah by himself for years before Utah was considered a state and he could do whatever he wanted to and the Mormons let him. Utah is still controled by Mormons, go to Utah and see.

2007-05-15 06:48:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

It is simply amazing that God believes all the same things as Joseph Smith and than later Brinham Young did.

2007-05-14 16:07:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I feel like Brigham Young wasn't the only racist, why didn't the church give the priesthood to african american people until 1978? My husband is not white, does that mean in the 1970s we couldnt get into heaven. I guess God decided he wanted his colored children to be with him now.

2007-05-15 01:08:13 · answer #8 · answered by divinity2408 4 · 2 2

It is a good question - and yes, they are correct with lookng at it in historical context - as in it was fully socially correct and expected of a man of his class to have rather firm views about race.

HOWEVER, if they are using it to justify treating others poorly for being of a different race, not of the same religion, etc- then that is a perversion of the teachings.

2007-05-14 16:12:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I'm LDS and dont justify anyone in my religion being a racist, just as Catholics wouldn't justify a priest being a child molester. I just try and focus on my life and try to live according to Jesus Christ's teachings, that's all that I can do.

2007-05-15 03:39:05 · answer #10 · answered by Melissa 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers