Monson: Gay Marriage Fight in CA 'Is Our Gettysburg'

[MikeWaters]

that quote, with the words that proceded it make no sense.

Is he saying they whip niggers too much, or not enough? Is he saying that niggers are so awful that they RUIN the land?

Based on his beliefs, it would not surprise me if this is correct.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

People call me a troll.

but then I ask them to name one subject I have harped on that I don't believe.

And they can't name one.

That's the point.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The 1859 statement is clear and covers a fair amount of ground. Pelagius' quote actually doesn't hit the issue quite as head on--it suggests that BY doesn't like how the Southerners went about their slavery. It doesn't speak against BY's declaration of slavery as a "Divine institution."

Maybe, its a possible reading. but once again the end of the quote seems to be unconditionally condemning slavery and not just a specific quibble about the south's implemenation of slavery:

The South has a beautiful climate and rich soil, but slavery ruins any soil. --Brigham Young, 1860

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I have to admit that I don't like the idea of fighting gay marriage, and many others here have voiced the same. But what I don't see here is a consensus of people trying to understand the church's point of view. What I primarily see is "they're wrong, they're wrong, they're wrong! I don't care the who's, when's or why's; they're wrong!"

I am offering ideas from the other side of the coin and am being called out as a troll for doing so. My mistake. Please forgive me. Let's resume bashing those stupid, uneducated, uncultured, living-in-the-50's, out-of-touch bigots.

ute4ever, as much as people would like to believe that the world is the worst its ever been, there is really no evidence for it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

ute4ever, as much as people would like to believe that the world is the worst its ever been, there is really no evidence for it.

But his hypothetical was that perhaps SWK had access to someone's evaluation that had been paying attention for the past 6,000 to 4,500,000,000 years.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is he saying they whip niggers too much, or not enough? Is he saying that niggers are so awful that they RUIN the land?

Talk about willfully misreading. You are so consumed about seeing past LDS teachings in the worst possible light that you probably do think that is a reasonable reading.

Now my Bayesian friend. Update your prior; I know it won't move much but it should move at least a tiny bit. I found an anti-slavery statement.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Talk about willfully misreading. You are so consumed about seeing past LDS teachings in the worst possible light that you probably do think that is a reasonable reading.

Now my Bayesian friend. Update your prior; I know it won't move much but it should move at least a tiny bit. I found an anti-slavery statement.

I looked at the tea leaves and decided they are tea leaves.

His statement about Utah slavery is not particularly enlightened, although possibly interpreted as mildly anti-slavery (i.e. "slaves are too expensive.")

Slaves ruin the land. Why? Maybe they ruin the view. Maybe they cost too much.

Is there any other quote? One that would build on the notion that BY was anti-slavery? Versus the mountain of evidence that he was pro-slavery. Who is misreading the priors?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Maybe, its a possible reading. but once again the end of the quote seems to be unconditionally condemning slavery and not just a specific quibble about the south's implemenation of slavery:

I like you, Pelagius, but you are reaching. Brigham Young goes from publicly stating that slavery is a divine institution until the curse of Ham is lifted in 1859, to an unconditional condemnation of slavery in 1860?

In my judgment, that's both unlikely and insufficiently supported. How far has Brigham Young moved in his position of slavery from 1852 (the infamous speech, I'm sure you are familiar with it)? He may have adjusted his views in the intervening years, certainly, but to suggest he has backed off a claim of Divine institution in only a year without a clear refutation or very, very strong evidence is shakey. Brigham Young uttered the infamous "death on the spot" for miscegenation statement in 1863! It's possible that he thought that slavery was no longer divine in 1863, but that people should still be killed for race mixing because of the "law of God," but you have a tough case here.

In fairness to Brigham Young, his views were shared by many Americans of his day, and the mark-as-curse business was not restricted to the LDS Church by any means.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is there any other quote? One that would build on the notion that BY was anti-slavery? Versus the mountain of evidence that he was pro-slavery. Who is misreading the priors?

Waters, I think all this reveals is that you are naive (maybe willfully so) when it comes to Brigham Young. The last thing he cared about was being consistent. He often changed his views very quickly. It is hardly surprising to find Young pro-slavery sometimes, anti-slavery unconditionally at others, and anti the souths version of slavery at others times. He did fairly similar things with the Word of Wisdom. At times he strongly pro word of wisdom and other times he wasn't. You are trying to force consistency where it isn't required.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Waters, I think all this reveals is that you are naive (maybe willfully so) when it comes to Brigham Young. The last thing he cared about was being consistent. He often changed his views very quickly. It is hardly surprising to find Young pro-slavery sometimes, anti-slavery unconditionally at others, and anti the souths version of slavery at others times. He did fairly similar things with the Word of Wisdom. At times he strongly pro word of wisdom and other times he wasn't. You are trying to force consistency where it isn't required.

So you are saying he was anti-slavery based on only one ambiguous quote?

Fine biographer you would make.