From an Exmo friend on FB,

Lets talk racism... Brigham Young was not ONLY a racist, he solidified racism as MORMON DOCTRINE (This dude was a "Prophet" and was the mouthpiece of God. He makes it clear that his sermons are doctrinal). He UNEQUIVOCALLY taught RACISM as DOCTRINAL on SEVERAL OCCASIONS!

Joseph Smith has said racist comments as well, but "Brother Brigham" made sure that our ancestors knew that "God's law" was not only racism, but the times to KILL or BEHEAD people on the basis of race... YES, MURDER!

* How much of that affected us and innocent others? Will the history here in Utah be under fire in the future? Is our state too "VANILLA" to experience the revolts we are witnessing throughout the country? (I don't want to see a revolt BTW)

Racism is/was a Mormon doctrine and still stains the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, conference talks, first presidency letters, etc. It is honestly one of the EASIEST things to verify. This is one of MANY reasons that I am DISGUSTED by MORMONISM.

*Reference Racism/Murder*

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

"If any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children."
-Brigham Young
(Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)

*Reference Brigham Young words doctrinal*

"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom . . . I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264).

"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2017 12:16PM by koriwhore.

BY's sentiments were aligned with the confederacy, sentiments which were ill concealed.

We can be sure it wasn't only because of his views on blacks and slavery, but also because he knew full well that when Lincoln's hands were freed from fighting the south that Abe would be coming after him for MMM.

We can also be sure that pulling down BY's statue would spark a civil war in Utah.

I am glad statues still stand honoring Brother Brigham.

I can't help but hope every day they stand another few people will see Mormonism for what it has always stood for.

I think we should paint them pink and dress them in frilly clothing.

Just to start the conversation. :-)

I have long maintained that the church will not have repented of its institutionalized racism until all schools that bare Brigham Young's name are re-named. To start with, the church needs to find a black scholar who will give his consent first, after which BYU in Provo is re-named in honor of that black scholar. Anything with Brigham's name on it needs to fade from memory in disgrace.

To get past the racism and white supremacy (and I am white myself), the mormon church needs to do more than give lip service from un-known authors, that disparages racism in general. Where does Thomas Monson and his underlings stand on racism?..... (only silence).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2017 11:01AM by azsteve.

I would LOVE to see YBU re-named to: Juanita Brooks University ...

She TOLD THE TRUTH, BY DIDN'T

I think this question illustrates my personal concern: where does it end? Are we going to erase everything that represents something we don't agree with (anymore)? How is this different from IS destroying ancient statues and temples for "pagan" idols?

The monuments at issue in the confederate monument issue are monuments to traitors that declared independence then attacked the USA as a foreign power, which is not actually a race issue. Yes, at the core of why they did it was a race issue, but the issue of removing confederate symbols is not just based on race, it includes the veneration of traitors and enemies of the USA.

Yup, it's a treason issue. The racial part comes in because many of the monuments were put up to reassert white dominance over the area in which they were erected.

It's not like most of these statues are great works of art. I understand that many were cheaply made in northern factories and then sold to southern buyers.

I was speaking generically, whether it be race or treason. What I'm trying to understand is how this affects people living today. I sometimes get the feeling that people identify with historical stuff that doesn't actually concern them in any real way.

My country for instance, Holland, has a shameful history of slave trading and trafficking to the "West Indies" (Surinam, Brazil). I agree with those who feel that this is not given proper attention in the way we teach and tell our history. We like to point to show tourists the grand 17th-century canal houses in Amsterdam but never tell them the wealth of the Golden Century was built on innocent blood and apalling violence against African slaves.

On the other hand, there are groups living in Holland today that descend from these slaves who honestly feel that they personally should be financially compensated by the Dutch government for these historical wrongs.

They weren't the victims. No Dutchman living today was a perpetrator. Why do they feel so strongly about this? Is it about tangible atonement? Recognition of historical wrongs? Feeling disenfranchised?

You also see this phenomenon the other way around. Why can't ordinary third-generation Dutch Turks today admit that the targeted slaughter of a million Armenians in the early 20th century was genocide? Why would I think less of my Turkish neighbour if he did? How does it hurt his pride?

These are things I wonder about. I guess this is why each generation writes his own history. Erasing it, however, is a whole different ballgame, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2017 01:41PM by rt.

You do not see a difference between racism and treason in regards to removing monuments? Really???

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do not see a difference between racism and
> treason in regards to removing monuments?
> Really???

I didn't say that. It's just not relevant to what I did say, and anyway, I don't know enough about Lee to comment one way or the otherr.

"I was speaking generically, whether it be race or treason" Sounds like you were making the difference irrelevant.

Hint: Treason is a major crime, simply being racist is not. Even slave owners, at the time of the outbreak of civil war, was not.

So, is racism and treason the same in general or not? Can you really say "I was speaking generically, whether it be [a completely legal act] or [crime punishable by death]"????

What's there to know about Lee? He was in the USA army, he then left the USA and took up arms against the USA on the side of the enemy of the USA., Which is treason.

Phht, yeah, I could just imagine someone making the case "yeah, he was a traitor that lead an army that kill thousands of the country the betrayed, but he wasn't a racist so the statue should stay.

You are not helping yourself

Aren't the majority of people who want the statues to come down taking the position based on racism?

I've never heard the treason argument put forward, but I have an inkling why that argument may be being made - it protects Washington and other racists.

Brigham Young didn't write the racist scripture.

Take down the Joseph Smith statues.


Regarding any statues, how long do we want to leave them up? I like to change the art work in my house occasionally. Who gives . . . .

Focusing on just racism is problematic. If you look at a person being a slave owner leading an army waging a war to establish a country with slavery, we would need to tear down the monuments to George Washington.

This becomes more interesting when we look at Robert E. Lee. From what I have read, I do not believe that Lee fought to preserve slavery, he fought out of loyalty to Virginia. The Nuremberg trials established that serving in the military of a "criminal" state does not make the person responsible for the crimes of the state when they were not convicted for crimes against humanity. So Lee himself should not be held accountable for the crimes of the state.

Lee was a slave owner that was raised in a slave state, but a case can be made that Lee did not consider the race as inherently inferior or inferior in a way that could not be overcome. From what I have read, Lee thought that the slaves were in an better place as slave than they were in Africa. He also thought that slavery was a necessary step to progress from their heathen state to emancipation based on Christianity. Though I disagree with this view, I can see how it could be held without believing the race is inherently and irrevocably inferior.

So, focusing on racism is problematic. It seems almost impossible to escape being hypocritical in eliminating the symbols of the confederacy without eliminating the symbols of Revolutionary USA.

As I mentioned elsewhere, The treason committed by the founding fathers would be a reason for Britain to refuse putting up monuments to the founding fathers. Treason against the USA is a reason to take down monuments of the Confederacy.

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I was speaking generically, whether it be race or
> treason" Sounds like you were making the
> difference irrelevant.

Yes, what gave it away? Maybe it was this: "It's just not relevant to what I did say".


> You are not helping yourself

Look, I realize you are trying to make a point, I just don't know what it is. Also, I suspect it has nothing to do with what I actually wrote; it's as if you barely came past the first sentence. If you wanna discuss my post, fine. If you wanna discuss Lee, not interested.

Lets see if I can get you to understand a bit better:

"I was speaking generically, whether it be race or treason. What I'm trying to understand is how this affects people living today. I sometimes get the feeling that people identify with historical stuff that doesn't actually concern them in any real way."

To understand the answer you MUST understand that you can not treat treason or race issues generically and especially not lump them together as if they were generically the same issue addressed the same way.

If you do not see how teaching children of today's children to honor and venerate treasonous acts of violence that killed millions in the name of repressive ideas like slavery, is a relevant issue in today's world of terrorism on behalf of repressive ideals, I don't know if there would be any answer you would understand.

Are there any statues of Anton Mussert in the Netherlands?
If not, why not?

Question for you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are there any statues of Anton Mussert in the
> Netherlands?
> If not, why not?


If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that no one at the time thought he deserved one. On the other hand, there was considerable controversy over the decision to restore the wall in Lunteren from which he used to address his followers. In the end, it was deemed of historical significance to do so, even if his party collaborated with the Nazis.

Violent secessionist slaveowners ...

Washington
Jefferson

The treason issue was would be an argument England could use for not putting up a monument to Washington or Jefferson in British lands.

Violence? Are you saying that simply being violent means there should not be a monument and all the war memorials should be torn down?

Both Jefferson and Washington moved American society forward in significant ways. No, they did not address slavery, but do we make monuments only to the people that cure all of the nation's ills? There would be no monuments, even to the best of men.

BY Supported the south. Hence, as to the USA he was a traitor. Indeed, the temple oaths of vengeance on the US re the deaths of JS and HS at Nauvoo, was clearly an act of treason. Having statues for him and others is clear idolatry. Yet, for a long time TSCC did not have pictures of Christ, yet now has a huge statue at the Salt Lake Temple to "prove" they are Christian. Personally, I think making statues of people is a form of idolatry which is especially used by the worst dictators.

Then make the case based on treason, not racism.

To clarify, I do not believe that in a free society that we should be thought police. Just being raciest is not enough to disqualify someone. It is their actions that should be judged.

Agreed.

When I was kid growing up in Utah, we'd go downtown and always cross the street from ZCMI to Temple Square. There was a BY statue on the street, and the common joke was that his statue was pointing to the bank on the corner, Zion's Bank. My mom would laugh and say, kids don't make fun of BY.

As SLC was getting ready for the 2002 Olympics, they sold that corner to TSCC and closed off that portion of main street. I think the statue is on Temple Square but I’m not really sure now. I haven’t been there since I came back to SLC except to drive by.

"There stands Brigham, that miserable old crank. His back to the temple, his hand to the bank."

I'm kinda with rt on this one -- though I thought azsteve's post above was masterful and spot on.

The thing is...pulling down the "monuments" does indeed seem like an attempt to "rewrite history." And I find that appalling. At the same time, I understand that these monuments are a constant reminder to some folks of the oppression of their ancestors -- and that it's often been continued to them.

So how about a compromise? We leave the "monuments," but we adorn them with big plaques explaining what racist asshats they were, and that the "monument" is being left so we can remember never to tolerate such people in our midst again?

Except for BYU. Again, I'm with azsteve on that one -- they gotta rename it or they're living in their racist past. :)

If democratically elected officials decide to remove the statues, is that wrong? I mean, couldn't voters throw the officials out of office and install people who would put the statues back up?

http://www.landofpyramids.org/images/min-temple-of-hathor-deir-el-medina-2.jpg
Who was ironically black, but the book of Abraham, where his dick pic is depicted (BoA, Fax2, Fig7) dehumanizes blacks.

tired: racist statues belong in museums
wired: take racist statues out of museums




Leftists Demand New York Museum Take Down Statue of ‘Racist’ Theodore Roosevelt

http://canadafreepress.com/article/leftists-demand-new-york-museum-take-down-statue-of-racist-theodore-rooseve

He was an evil SOB!!!!! But aren't they all? Church threw him under the bus for ratings. Same thing will happen with same sex stuff. All will be swept under the rug and forgotten.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2017 06:23PM by incognitotoday.

Sniveling, leftist, lunatics run amok ... so sad. Yes, BY and crew were evil scum. No, many of us wouldn't care if their image disappeared from Utah.

But attempting to erase history isn't good for learning from said and won't assuage the reason why you really want to destroy our cultural memory: you are now irrelevant and western civilization increasingly no longer tolerates your insanity. So march, and cry, and remove any monument you want, because it ultimately won't matter. BHO's administration was the last, failed, pathetic, almost funny, gasp of "progressivism". No amount of whining is going to change that fact. Deep down you know that. Enjoy!

Typical tired, overstated, baseless conservative straw man argument. z

There is a difference between stopping the veneration of evil and rewriting, removing a monument does not rewrite history. The true history can be taught with or without a monument.

I'm all for pulling down the BY statue sometime in the small hours of the night. Anyone care to meet at 2am or so in front of the admin building?

How about a statue or likeness of Juanita Brooks and/or Helmuth Hubener for the LDS?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2017 11:39PM by GNPE.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about a statue or likeness of Juanita Brooks
> and/or Helmuth Hubener for the LDS?

Interesting suggestion. For all the huffing and puffing going on, nothing actually seems to get done. It's easier to destroy than to create.

For me, much of the discussion here misses the point. Confederate statues, for example Lee and Jefferson Davis, are not prominently displayed as an innocent reminder of history. They are there to venerate men who took a central role in fighting against a movement primarily intended to end, or limit, slavery. The Civil War was not centrally about state's rights; it was about slavery. Absent the slavery issue, there would not have been a Civil War.

Although Robert E. Lee in fact did many noteworthy things prior to the civil war, he is primarily known and revered because of his participation as a general in the civil war; i.e. his participation in a violent movement to sustain slavery. That is what his notoriety is entirely about! And that is why his statue is rightfully offensive. Treason has nothing to do with it.

Washington and Jefferson were of course slaveholders, and slavery sympathizers. This is considered today as a black mark on our history. But, neither they, or statues and other symbols depicting them, are revered because of this aspect of their personal life and attitude. They are known and revered because of their role in establishing the Republic, independent of their personal failings.

The argument that there is hypocrisy here is misplaced. No one is suggesting that every historical figure who practiced or believed in slavery should be forever ostracized from public esteem. However, when the historical figure's entire historical significance is based upon his or her role in a movement deemed fundamentally immoral, further reverence and displayed respect for that person is misplaced, and *does* suggest that the local community celebrates not that persons misguided thoughts or personal practices, but his place in history as a symbol of the movement he is known for, which movement is now universally deemed misguided and immoral.

Brigham Young is known by Mormons and non-Mormons as a religious leader who brought the Mormons West and established SLC. For Mormons he is also known for his place in Mormonism as a religious "prophet." However, he is not primarily known and revered because of his prejudicial views or his views on slavery. As such, symbols and statues of him do not reflect approval of such attitudes; but rather acknowledgment of his more "positive" historical accomplishments. As such, there is no argument that such statues should be removed on the basis that they venerate slavery or prejudice. A better argument is that they should be removed because they venerate Mormonism.

Good thing we have own racist heroes that we still adore and admire.

Franklin D Roosevelt had 100's of thousands of American citizens rounded up and put in concentration camps, confiscated their homes and businesses.

Then there is Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She was an advocate of black genocide (http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html) and race eugenicist (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/).

How do feel about the monuments and museums that are being destroyed in Iraq, Syria etc.? Confederacy is part of our history like it or not.

Yes, the Confederacy is American history and should be analyzed and taught as such.

But Communism was the dominant element of Russian history through the 20th century. Does that mean it was wrong to tear down the statues of Lenin and Stalin?

I frankly think those statues should have been transplanted to museums and history books, since they are important both as historical artifacts and as examples of a certain artistic and political style. But there is no philosophical or moral principle demanding that people preserve in public space the symbols of oppression.

Monuments and statues are not textbooks designed to portray history, good or bad, moral or immoral. They are symbols honoring achievements, and the person instrumental in such achievements, regardless of whatever foibles such persons may otherwise have. The fact that Roosevelt, Sanger, and numerous other persons otherwise admired for specific achievement had serious moral shortcomings is irrelevant to the monuments that celebrate their achievements.

So, what remarkable and laudable achievement of Robert E. Lee should we as a society celebrate in the form of a monument or statue? In what way does he stand out as emblematic of something good and positive? There is none. What he symbolizes is nothing more than a fierce, active, and violent advocate for the institution of slavery. Not so with Roosevelt, Sanger and many others.

+1

I don't recall knowing, much less seeing a statue of either Roosevelt or Sanger.

The south started the war (no war is 'civil'), costing many thousands of lives & $ millions of property losses.

THEY LOST, and Hatred & Racism should have ended with it.

I Guess Not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2017 09:25PM by GNPE.

Taking down monuments situated in publically owned spaces is not the same as erasing history. As a white person, who lived in the south for a number of years, I couldn't help wondering how I would feel having to traipse by one of the many monuments to confederate "war heroes" on display on public property, especially court house grounds, in the south were I black. I certainly don't think I'd feel confident of finding justice in institutions adorned with this so-called "history."

These monuments are about racism, and intimidation; they have little to do with actual history. Many of them of them were sponsored, originally, by such objectively historical preservationists as the Daughters of the Confederacy, in the early 1900s, in a well-orchestrated and largely successful attempt to whitewash history, not preserve it.

The effects of their campaign reverberate even in our current "Information Age," as illustrated by the continued belief by some, in an ideallic southern antebellum past of enlightened and compassionate slave masters ensconced in clean, paradisacal plantation communities where enslaved black people trotted about happily singing hymns all day, instead of anxiously mourning the on-going destruction of their frequently separated families, their appalling living conditions, and the constant threat of unchecked physical and sexual violence and abuse from their owners.

History? My a$$.

Everybody is trying to be a victim. I mean, all minorities are victims of racism, and all women are victims of sexism and on and on.

Now we can't walk by BY's statue without being a victim.

Victimhood is big business. Victims get more benefits. News media makes more money by creating racism and sexism.

With all the oppression here, why aren't blacks heading back to Africa? Government could provide them a plane ticket and money to live for 5 years so they can go back to the homeland.

I also don't understand why women keep hooking up with the oppressive male. I understood they no longer need them.

Racism is like terrorism. We need people to think it is everywhere. We're suppose to be afraid of ISIS. I've never seen an ISIS. But gov't needs our fear to justify spending big money.

Likewise, I've known thousands of people, and can't think of one who was a racist, in or out of the church.

So lets keep this thing going. Don't ignore the few idiots. Let's have some big riots and more news coverage and telling everyone how terribly oppressed they are so they feel more and more victimized and angry and entitled to reparations. Why work when you are owed a living because Great Great Great Grandpa was a slave?

Racism would decline if we weren't encouraging it. The future doesn't look bright - kind of glad I'm older and won't be here in 40 years. Racism being whipped up and you can't question it without being accused of being a racist. So it will only get worse.

You can't question feminism without being called a misogynist, so hatred of men will increase until something big happens, or men check out. Good luck maintaining infrastructure without them.

Not looking pretty.

Oh, and if you're a minority, you will be able to commit crimes without consequence, as arresting a man of color will be racism.

It's going to get ugly.

Yes

But descendants of certain people who are immortalized in statues want them pulled down. Do they have a say or are they victims?

If Steve Young said, 'I want my ancestor's statue pulled down', does he have more weight behind his request than I do?

I would enjoy across the nation, crowds lassoing and pulling down Moroni off of temples.

Does LDS, Inc. explain the symbols on the SL Temple?

(Repeat) YBU should be re-named to Juanita Brooks University

Equestrian Statue - Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band will make you love statues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtfFmYiI40