This address is rather controversial. It has been the source of many false theories among believers in the Book of Mormon and among opponents to that book.
You can find LaJean Purcell Carruth's transcription from shorthand to English at
This is the card catalog entry, I think:
Brigham Young, 5 February 1852
Papers of George D. Watt MS 4534 box 1 folder 3; images 142, 140, 138, 136, 134,
Sermon not in Journal of Discourses or in CR 100 317; in Complete Discourses of Brigham Young 1:468
Transcribed by LaJean Purcell Carruth 1 March 2013
[Page 32; image 142]
February 5th Joint Session 1852 10 a.m.
Young
Governor Young was requested to give his views on slavery.
Somewhere in there was a note that seemed to be Sis. Carruth explaining that there were blank spaces in the shorthand Br. Watts took down. I can't find it now. The note seemed to indicate the opinion that those gaps were not from failing to take down parts of the address.
In at least one of the blank spaces, I think she may be right. But that does not mean that there are no gaps in the shorthand transcription.
Humans are not tape recorders, not digital recorders, either. It is not humanly possible to take shorthand of this kind of address without missing some things.
Based on my understanding of Brigham Young, and of the doctrines being dealt with, there must be both small and significant gaps in the shorthand transcription.
I trust that Br. Watt did the best he could. I trust that his ability was not lacking. But he was human, and humans have limits.
Br. Watts was dependable in a lot of things, most of the time. Sometimes, not so much -- just like any other human. We should not expect that he recorded everything perfectly every time. We should especially not expect that his records were made without sometimes inducing interpolations based on various things including his own understandings and misunderstandings. And, judging from my own experiences, I cannot assume that Brigham Young did not speak faster than Br. Watt could record.
I also trust Sis. Carruth to have faithfully transcribed from what exists in the shorthand record to the best of her ability. And I trust that her ability is not lacking. But she is also human.
Of course, Brigham Young himself was also human. He was sometimes compulsive. He often spoke off the cuff. He is known to have said things in public that he later took back.
This address, as far as I know, was not subject to careful review by Brigham Young, and has not been subject to doctrinal review by the Church. The leaders have not considered it significant enough to warrant such doctrinal review.
And there is one more point that we really need to consider carefully. Back in the mid-1800s, people spoke in different terms. They used absolutes often because they didn't have time to try to cover all the possibilities. When there are crops to bring in, sometimes you just find the quickest way to finish up a discussion that you can.
Also, the metalanguage was different. Many things have different meanings, different assumptions.
I'll offer one example, from among Brigham Young's sermons, of modes of expression we probably would not use but which we might understand with a little thought:
You may, figuratively speaking, pound one Elder over the head with a club, and he does not know but what you have handed him a straw dipped in molasses to suck. There are others, if you speak a word to them, or take a straw and chasten them, whose hearts are broken; they are as tender in their feelings as an infant, and will melt like wax before the flame. You must not chasten them severely; you must chasten according to the spirit that is in the person. Some you may talk to all day long, and they do not know what you are talking about. There is a great variety. Treat people as they are. (Discourses of Brigham Young, 150.)
There are a lot metaphors in there that are not politically correct these days.
Without the last two sentences, you might conclude that Brigham Young had a bad habit of making fun of people, or disparaging them. You might conclude so anyway, but the fact is that they used different modes of expression.
You can't read what Brigham Young said and just assume it means the same as what it would mean if a comedian said it on a stage on the west coast in 2026.
So I am copying out the transcription here, adding punctuation and interpolations, with notes on my interpolations and reasons, and my own commentary. I am also prefacing some sections with material I consider useful background.
This is not intended to give or even reflect official doctrine in the matters discussed, although I do point to a lot of official doctrine in the process.
Warning in advance, I do not read shorthand, so I am not referring to the shorthand itself in my efforts. Mea culpa.
Brigham Young:
I will make a few remarks.
The items before the House I do not understand.
I think you'll agree this was a little bit in an ironic sense.
The principle of slavery I understand. I have self confidence and self confidence in God enough to believe I do.
I believe still further that a great many others understand it as I do. A good portion of this community have been instructed, and apply their minds to it, and, as far as they have, agreeing precisely in principles of slavery, {understand it as I do}.
Some people will say that he was saying that everyone must understand it as he does.
I don't think so. I've studied his discourses. He is, rather, calling his listeners to think for themselves, including as to whether they agree or not.
This is a common issue with Brigham Young's discourses. He says, get your own testimony. But all too many people say that he must mean that if your testimony doesn't agree with him you are doing things wrong, and it's your responsibility to fix it.
He often speaks in the absolute. Make no mistake.
But if you listen to what he is saying, the one most important absolute is that, if you aren't thinking for yourself, you absolutely can't get it right. From a different sermon:
There they are directed to go, not to … any Apostle or Elder in Israel, but to the Father in the name of Jesus, and ask for the information they need. (Discourses of Brigham Young, 429 - 30; referenced in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, ch. 43)
Think back to that example I quoted above, showing the differences in modes of expression back then. The last two sentences -- "There is great variety. Treat people as they are."
He is not trying to force conclusions. He is not requiring you to agree. He is asking you to think for yourself.
If you don't believe me when I say this, you can read the entire chapter 43 of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young. I doubt you'll be immediately and directly convinced, but it's worth reading anyway.
Continuing from the address to the legislature --
My remark first would be upon the cause of introduction of slavery.
The [two pieces?]=> {There are} two {parts. It's a} little long, but {bear with me}.Mama Eve, our good old Mother Eve took forbidden fruit and
make{made a} slave [of] her{self}.
And we should stop to think what that means.
Has she made herself a slave to Adam? No. That's apparent.
To God? Not exactly. Not in the way we typically think of "slave". That is also apparent.
To the devil, or to sin?
Oh, that would be so easy to answer in the positive, and it's such an easy sloppy tradition. But, no. Well, maybe, sorta, but not really. Not more than temporarily.
By partaking of the fruit, she has made herself a slave to consequences -- death, yes, but to consequences -- to the linear connection from act to consequence, to the linear flow of time, to the thermodynamic principle.
Some people confuse entropy with sin.
There is some scripture that seems to conflate the two, but careful study of the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon about sin separates our fallen conditions from the decisions that lead us to our fallen conditions. The punishment or consequence is not the sin.
We need to review things that Brigham Young would have understood about the fall, and that he likely expected his audience -- at least, some of the members of the Church among his audience -- to understand.
First God said to Adam and Eve
... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1: 28.)
Was this not a commandment? Did it not take precedence?
Then God told Adam, apparently while he was alone,
... Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Wait. Let's bring the first part of that first verse back in and look at that first sentence again:
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2: 16-17.)
I know it says "commanded", but is that a commandment as we would think of it, or a warning?
I'm going to paraphrase my way:
I am commanding you that you may freely eat, but warning you about that one tree over there. If you eat of that one, it doesn't come free.
Think of this. Do you tell your five year-old kid that it's probably not a good idea to drink the all the grape juice in the fridge, or do you just say, "Don't!"?
Apparently, either Adam passed that on to Eve, or God later told Eve, also, because when the devil comes a tempting, Eve knows what to say at first.
God lays out the consequences. Eve notices a contradiction, apparently with the help of the devil. She makes a choice prioritizing the knowledge and wisdom that she and Adam lack, the lack of which prevents them from doing the former commandment about taking responsibility.
And when Eve and then Adam partake, they have to assume the consequences.
Oddly enough, they don't seem to die immediately, even though God said they would die in that day.
That's a long day. Day becomes a metaphor for the introduction into their world of the linear flow of time.
However, we do notice that they seem not to be immediately aware of the Father when He comes next.
Separation from the Holy Spirit leaves them less sensitive to spiritual things.
When we talk of death, we usually mean the separation of our spirit from our flesh.
Sometimes, when the scriptures speak of death, it means separation of us from the Spirit of God.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8: 6, 7.)
They do temporarily become slaves to the sinful world. They become temporarily under the influence of the devil. But what they really become slaves to is consequences -- to experience, from which they may choose to gain learning and wisdom.
Temporarily, because the plan to save us all was instituted from before the foundations of the world. We must not treat that fact casually, but we also need to understand that the plan was indeed in place before the fall.
Among many parts of Christendom, the plan to save us seems to be considered an after-thought by an otherwise perfect God, necessitated by Adam's failure. Believers in the Book of Mormon should not believe that. For example,
For were it not for the redemption which he hath made for his people, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, I say unto you, were it not for this, all mankind must have perished. (Mosiah 15: 19.)
And
And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world. (Mosiah 18: 13.)
Salvation was not an accident.
And when Adam and Eve become able to learn, that's when they become able to actually subdue the earth, to have dominion (or responsibility) over it, and to replenish it.
How is that done?
They cannot obey the first commandment without breaking the second. But breaking the second potentially makes them slaves of the devil and sin unless they turn their hearts to God, which is to repent. Without the atonement, it would make them slaves of the devil. Through faith in Jesus, they are freed from that slavery, but they remain slaves of the law of thermodynamics as long as they are mortal.
Why is that slavery necessary? It becomes an apprenticeship, where God and His messengers teach Adam and Eve how to do things that, in spite of their perfection before being introduced to the garden, they could not do. Experience was required, and the apprenticeship, or slavery, if you will, was how they gained that experience.
It is a doctrine partially hidden in the Old Testament, but God prepared the way for them to break the bands of sin and of the undesirable consequences of sin from before the Garden. It was set up from the foundation, that God Himself would provide the means whereby Adam and Eve could turn their hearts to God and live -- whereby they could repent. Jehovah Himself tells the brother of Jared,
Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. (Ether 3: 14.)
That's what the name "Jesus" means: "God is our help."
This is the Gospel as it is taught by the Book of Mormon. The people Brigham Young was talking to should have understood this, although the record seems to show that some did not.
With that in mind, let's return to Brigham Young:
Adam [--?] {would have} hated very much to have her taken out [of the] garden {by herself}. And now daddy [Adam]
days{says} I believe I will become a slave, too.{This is the} first part {or element} of slavery on this earth and {there is} not a son [or] daughter of Adam from that day to this but what are slaves in {a} true sense of the word.
We are all slaves to the thermodynamic principle. That crosses racial boundaries, entirely.
That slavery will continue until there is a people raised upon {the} face of {the} earth that will contend for righteous principles, that will not only believe, but {will} operate with every power and faculty given to them to help
to help [sic]the rise of {the} kingdom [of the] Son of God, and to overcome the other brother and drive him from the earth, so {that} the curse can be removed from the earth.
Now, who is the "other brother" that Brigham Young mentions, whom we must overcome and drive from the earth?
It is all too easy to say, oh, that must be Cain.
But Brigham Young hasn't mentioned either Cain or Able yet.
Oh, panick! Horrors!!!
Believers in the Book of Mormon are taken to sore task for what I am about to say, but bear with me.
Yes, in a certain sense, Jesus and you and I and Adam are siblings, together spiritual children of God. Jesus says, to Mary,
... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20: 17.)
We cannot argue with this and keep the Holy Spirit of God in us.
God the Father created man who can sin. We see that in Genesis.
Oh, dear. We just keep treading upon all sorts of traditional blasphemies here.
Jesus said also that He is able to do all that the Father has shown Him.
...The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: .... (John 5: 19.)
I and my Father are one. (John 10: 30.)
All things that the Father hath are mine: .... (John 16: 15.)
He is therefore able to act as the Father for us, for our faith, and for our spiritual rebirth.
And He did so as Jehovah, before He took upon Himself the flesh and blood of this world. That was the whole purpose for sacrifices under the old covenant, to point our hearts to Jesus Christ.
And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; .... (Ether 3: 9.)
He is not His own Father, yet he can act in the stead of His Father and ours for our salvation. He becomes the Father of our salvation when we follow Him.
Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. (Mosiah 15: 10.)
All mortal as we cannot imagine how Father and Son could be so unified and yet be distinct personages, but the fact that our finite minds cannot comprehend it does not matter one whit.
Now, God created us, and we have the capability of sin -- grave sin, and great evil.
One of us, before the earth was made, committed a sin so great that he became the devil.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! .... (Isaiah 14: 12.)
Sure, that metaphor is being applied to the king of Babylon, but if the referent isn't valid, how useful is the metaphor?
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1: 6.)
The standard apologetic is that Satan did not have to be one of the sons of God to be able to be among them, but that just begs all sorts of questions that you don't have good answers to if you are trying to argue that God could not have created someone as evil as Satan.
Yes. Lucifer is one of the spirits made by God.
Well, maybe you don't believe it, but that is the other brother Brigham Young refers to in the part I quoted above. Not Cain, even though Cain became a child of the devil and the father of perdition.
The other brother that he says we have to drive from the earth is Satan. And the curse that we have to rid the earth of is the curse of sin.
Is that not obvious?
How can that not be obvious?
Well, back to Brigham Young:
That is the starting point of slavery.
And next, after we find that they partook of the curse {of sin} that they had two sons, Cain and Abel.
To be positive which is the oldest I cannot say perhaps.
I'm pretty sure Brigham Young was quite familiar with the scriptures which show fairly clearly that Cain was the elder of the two, and that Adam and Eve had many more children than just Cain and Abel. Admitted, the Pearl of Great Price had not yet been accepted by the Church in general as scripture, but Brigham Young could not have been unfamiliar with the contents of Moses chapter 5.
So, I think we should assume that he was saying there that the members did not generally know, just from the Bible alone, whether Cain was the eldest son of Adam.
This I know, {that} Cain was rather more given to evil practices than Abel. Whether he was the oldest or not matters not to me.
But Adam was commanded to sacrifice and offer up his offering to God,
that{who} placed him in {the} garden.{Now} through the faith and obedience of Abel to {the} Father, Cain became jealous of him. And he laid a plan to obtain all the blessings he found
[that/them?]{that} Abel {had obtained} through his perfect obedience to the Father.{Cain was} jealous [of] Abel
[remainder of line blank]{because he had obtained} more blessings than himself {and} consequently took it into his heart to put Abel out of {the} way, {and} did so.
I think there was more that Br. Watt was not able to record than "because he had obtained" or some equivalent, but I don't think we need to interpolate everything that was missed.
When the Lord inquired for Abel and made Cain own {up to} what {he had} done with him, now, says Grandfather, I won’t destroy the seed of Michael and his wife. And, Cain, I will not kill you nor suffer anybody else to kill you.
There will be complaints about calling God Cain's Grandfather, but, seriously. God is Adam's Father, even if He was Adam's Father before this world was subject to time and death.
This does not deny Jesus' unique position as the only begotten of the Father in our temporal world. Adam came into our temporal world in a slightly different way than we do, even if it is different for no other reason than that Adam's creation occurred while the earth itself was still not subject to time and death.
Again, you may not accept it for yourself, but that is what Brigham Young understood. That is what he would be saying here.
Continuing --
I will put a mark on you.
What is the mark?
You see that mark on the face -- on the countenance -- of every African you ever did see on {the} face of earth {or} ever will see.
Why did Brigham Young clarify with "on the countenance"? Why was "on the face" not enough?
On the face might be a blemish, or color. Skin color, of course, is not just the face, even.
"On the countenance" might be just a flowery way to say "on the face", but it is at least as likely to be talking about expression or attitude, also, or perhaps instead.
I'm sure you know that punishments from God are most often natural consequences. When we commit grave sin, that sin is usually at least somewhat reflected in our countenance.
Let's see what the scriptures have to say about Cain's countenance before he killed Abel, from Genesis 4:
... unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? (Genesis 4: 5, 6.)
So we see that Cain was already marked by his avarice before he slew Abel.
Something to think about, what was Cain's sin in making his offering? Was it in offering grain instead of the flesh of cattle?
The Bible is rather detailed about how to offer the firstfruits of grain as an offering.
Here, we can refer, as we are sure Brigham Young did, to the text of The Pearl of Great Price.
You may complain because the pamphlets which became The Pearl of Great Price had only barely been published, in Great Britain, in 1851. But the contents were, as I say, things that Brigham Young would have known and been familiar with, from when it had been published at Independence, Missouri in the newspaper The Evening and Morning Star and at Nauvoo, Illinois in the newspaper Times and Seasons, by Joseph Smith.
In Moses 5 we find this:
And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord. (Moses 5: 18.)
Cain's sin was in that he was following Satan when he made the sacrifice.
In the Apocalypse, we see something about the mark of the beast. 666. The number of God is three, and the number of man is six, and man trying to be equal with God without actually taking on himself the full attributes of god is 666.
(666 is also the Unix file permissions for a file that can be read and written from anywhere on the network, and those permissions in the drivers (palm) and the kernel (forehead) are really bad news. Metaphorically, it can imply the worship of society over the worship of God. I'm not sure Brigham Young would have known about this, and I don't know if it's meaningful to you, but it is something for me to consider.)
We see something else, though, in chapter 14 of the Apocalypse :
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. (Revelation 14: 1.)
Is not the name of God in the forehead in effect the (admittedly non-physical) mark of our faith in Jesus? The belief in truth and faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Our attitudes and our faith?
But Cain became perdition, according to the text of the Pearl of Great Price, the spiritual father among men of those who love and make a lie, of those who rebel against God because they refuse to understand that real faith is not in illusions and that real power is not to be found in force.
If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. ...;
For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; ... (Moses 5: 23, 24.)
Is not the mark of Cain the belief in force, illusion, and lies?
Brigham Young would have understood this, wherever his ranting before the legislature of the State of Utah might have led him that day.
Ranting, I say.
Brigham Young was known to have spoken more freely than he should have on more occasion than one. Reading this transcript, it is clear that this was one of those occasions. One reason this particular occasion causes concern is that he never publicly addressed what he said here, and the content is thought by some to have had a significant effect on Church policy -- even though this address was not among those that were doctrinally reviewed and compiled in the (only 26 volumes?) generally available, Journal of Discourses or the shorter Discourses of Brigham Young.
And I will have to admit at this point that there is a lot of heavy lifting here that I hesitate to do. I do not want to replace an old idolatry trap that the Church has left behind, that I had nothing to do with in this life, with another of my own making. (Even though there is precedent in Gideon.)
But it seems to need to be done. Where was I?
I have not persuaded many, I am sure, but this a vital predicate to what comes next:
The mark of Cain that counts is as I have described above, an attitude that the power of force is better than the power of God, which is also the belief in deception instead of truth, in illusion instead of faith. If you've lived very long, you've seen it in certain people. This is the real mark of Cain, and Brigham Young knew this.
Brigham Young also knew that many of the people around him would not understand this.
Many had come in from other churches, bringing with them the belief that the mark of Cain was in the color of the skin alone, or somehow in the bloodlines or race -- what we would now call the genetics.
Moreover, Brigham Young knew that many of those who violently opposed the Church believed that the mark of Cain was in race, and that they based the violence of their opposition partly in the fact that Joseph Smith had accepted those of the proscripted race and ordained them to the priesthood while he was alive.
These were men who were carrying the real mark of Cain in them, excusing violence against blacks and Mormons and others because of ideological differences. Making a man an offender for a word (Isaiah 29: 21).
Brigham Young also understood in advance about the civil war that was brewing. And he knew that the belligerents who were preparing to go to war were both in the wrong. (Isn't it usually so?) The South would be wrong in their insistence on retaining slavery and in their desire to split the country up in order to do so; and the North would be wrong in their abrogation of State Rights and forced cessation of slavery.
He was trying to walk a tightrope between expectations and politics and semantics.
You will say I am trying to walk a semantic tightrope.
Were the tens of thousands of women employed in manufacturing clothing in the northeast parts of the US during the 1800s and early 1900s actually in a substantially different situation from slavery? The male construction workers that built the skyscrapers of the 1800s and early 1900s?
Even now, abusive employment environments where the employees have no practical freedom to leave, and under which they are subject to the whims of their bosses, have not gone away, even if -- in the US and a few other "advanced" countries -- there are somewhat better conditions than what most of the slaves of the 1800s endured for most people.
Outside the US, in many countries we have too many people working in conditions that do not differ significantly from slavery of the past, And we have people in "advanced" countries enjoying the fruits of what near-slave labor produces.
It's easy to virtue signal and posture, but are you using a smart phone? Where do your clothes come from? Are you driving an electric car? Are you using palm oil in your cooking or your diet? Did you ship your electronics off to be disposed of somewhere else?
Are you doing anything to relieve conditions in your nearby slums?
Keep these things in mind when you judge Brigham Young for what he says here and what he fails to say (which many think is worse).
Now, the text from the transcription from this point becomes substantially less coherent, and I'm tempted to just say Brigham Young wasn't perfect, and go do something more meaningful to me personally than continuing this.
For some reason, I will continue.
People who don't understand how revelation isn't God forcing us to think or to understand something will not be satisfied to know that we members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not bothered with the fact that a prophet of God would find himself bouncing around a bit while trying to figure out how to describe a path forward for the Church, and for Utah, regarding slavery and race.
God should just reveal it without any effort on our part, right?
Nope. Doesn't happen. Hate to disappoint you.
That bouncing around is, in fact, part of the effort.
If you are disappointed in the fact that obtaining revelation requires very real effort, study, patience, belief, and faith, _and_ trial and error, you are going to be disappointed in the fact that God doesn't seem to be interested in coming down here and directly imposing the perfect theocracy on us all. But it's still a fact. Even during the millennium, He will not force us.
According to the old hymn:
Know this, that ev’ry soul is free
To choose his life and what he’ll be;
For this eternal truth is giv’n:
That God will force no man to heav’n.
He’ll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love, and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.
Freedom and reason make us men;
Take these away, what are we then?
Mere animals, and just as well
The beasts may think of heav’n or hell.
May we no more our pow’rs abuse,
But ways of truth and goodness choose;
Our God is pleased when we improve
His grace and seek his perfect love.
(Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints #240.
Recently credited to Joseph Proud of The Lord's New Church, ca. 1790.)
From the Book of Mormon,
Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. (2 Nephi 2: 27.)
We came down here to learn --
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. ...
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38: 4 - 7.)
And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; (Abraham 3: 24, 25.)
If God handed us all our answers, what would we learn? How would we prove anything about ourselves to ourselves or to God?
Again, this is all doctrine with which Brigham Young was familiar.
Back to Brigham Young's address to the Utah Legislature.
Now I tell you what I know, then. When the mark was put upon Cain, [Abel[’s] seed?]2, {I believe}his{Abel's} children were in all probability young.
Sis. Carruth notes that what she tentatively transcribes as "Abel's seed" might have been "I believe". I'm going with both, in effect. It seems to fit in with what comes next.
I'm pretty sure he is saying that he understands Abel's children to have still been young when they were orphaned and the mark was put on Cain.
You didn't know Abel had children? I'm going to say it would have been odd if he hadn't had children by the time the differences with Cain came to a head. The account is compressed in the Bible, but we know Adam lived a long time, if the Bible is to be trusted. Also, if the Bible is to be trusted, both Adam and Eve had perfect bodies, and neither was going to succumb to health issues very soon.
I know, I know, it's interesting to believe that Eve only had Cain, Abel, and Seth, and then died really young, so that we can get excited talking about Lilith and decide that Cain and Seth's wives must have been from somewhere else.
And it offends our sensibilities to think that we are forbidden to marry siblings, but Adam and Eve's children would have to had to marry siblings. But the genes were still in good shape back then, so the genetic problems would not have been an issue.
Power dynamics within the family would have been an issue, yes. Power dynamics are still a problem, even though incest has been defined as a crime for a long time.
Back to the address.
The Lord told Cain he should not receive the blessings of priesthood until the last of {the} posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of {the} earth.
I suppose Brigham Young may be suggesting the idea that the children and grandchildren of Adam who chose to follow God instead of Satan could legitimately be called Abel's children, in the same sense that Jesus called his converts the true children of Moses.
Or he could have simply been noting that the children of Abel were given precedence over the children of Cain, perhaps more than the other children of Adam -- although Noah would be of the lineage of Seth. I think this option less likely.
But how's this for bold doctrine? Even Cain might find some sort of redemption.
Why would Cain not be allowed to receive blessings of the priesthood of God?
There is a fundamental problem here. When you believe in lies, deception, force, and illusion, when you give those precedence, by your traditions, over faith, truth, and choice, this belief prevents you from doing things the way God does them. The way God does things is His priesthood.
Call it the judgments of God. Call it a law of nature. Cain cannot obtain the blessings of the priesthood because he denies the fundamental principles of the priesthood of God. And, by his own choices and actions, he sets himself outside the environment in which those who believe in God learn how God does things. By the thermodynamic principle, Cain has set himself in opposition to the priesthood of God, and it is evidently his own will to remain in opposition until the end of our world's temporal existence.
If there never was a prophet or Apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you this people that {are} commonly called Negros are children of Cain.
Note that he does not say the only children of Cain.
In all our modern self-contradictory efforts to forcibly get rid of racism, it is a conveniently forgotten fact that many of the black peoples in Africa seemed to have had no problem with killing each other, enslaving each other, and selling each other off into slavery, etc. Illusion and deception were common principles within their traditions. In this way, they were definitely children of Cain.
Brigham Young did not mention here that the white slavers also had many children of Cain among them. He does, however, allude to this fact as we go on in this address.
I know they are. I know they cannot bear rule in {the} priesthood in the first sense of word for the curse upon them was to continue on them.
I'm going to repeat myself, I guess:
There is a fundamental wall between the powers of the priesthood of God and the powers of the priesthoods Satan claims.
Look around yourself. Other than the inexorable effects of the laws of nature, God mostly stays out of our way. He does not force much of anything, beyond what is incurred by the laws of nature. He stays so much out of our way that our atheists think He is not there.
The devil, on the other hand, seems always ready to try to force us to do one thing or another, through laws of force, political power, weapons of intimidation, fraud, deception, lies, illusion, etc. He does this through whispers and rumors, lies and deceptions and the illusions of force.
You have to understand the differences in approach and accept God's way, or you cannot bear rule, as Brigham Young puts it, in the Priesthood of God.
This is true, regardless of race.
However, there are traditions among different cultural groups which actively militate against understanding the power of God.
There are differences, so much, that I am sure that some people, who have tended to lean towards the ideation of power, who read this will be unable to understand how it could be possible that what I describe as the power of God could be any sort of power at all. These are the traditions of Cain.
And there are traditions among many culture groups which would see the apparent absence of force among those who exercise the priesthood of God and see nothing but a power vacuum. These are also the seed of Cain.
I think I should give a somewhat concrete example of the traditions of Cain.
Some people think that power is the fundamental principle in human all relations.
It is, in fact, a fundamental necessity to assert power over your own decisions, and over your own actions to the extent that you can.
But the fundamental principle of human relations is, or should be, love.
Some people think of love as merely desire. But that would probably be better said to be lust.
The love which God has for us is the desire for our eternal happiness and welfare. We can have that same love for each other.
This is an example of the differences between the traditions of Cain and the ways of the children of God.
I'll refer to a revelation given to Joseph Smith:
Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. (Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 121: 34 - 36.)
A person who cannot see the power of God for what it is cannot bear rule in the priesthood without some serious repentance.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; .... (Doctrine and Covenants 121: 41.)
There will be, in any particular culture group, some who will readily understand the power of God.
There will be, in any particular culture group, some who will obstinately depend instead on the trappings of (the illusions of) power.
Can societies repent? If the history of Israel isn't informative on that, look at Nineveh. Jonah preached (without a lot of hope). The king listened. The king taught his people, and Nineveh repented, and their time was prolonged.
Can individuals repent? Look at the king of Nineveh. Look at David. Look at all the individuals who did repent.
For what it's worth, I am convinced that Cain himself could repent, at least, to some extent. But there would apparently always be someone willing to take his place, to lead in the false priesthoods of the illusions of force. So that would not really change the degree to which our civilizations have been evil so much of our history.
In certain demographics, those who understand the power of God will be very rare, and those who depend on the trappings of power will be the norm. And in such groups it will take time, and prolonged contact with people who can set a good example in recognizing and accepting the power of God, to clear the false traditions away. Thus Brigham Young said,
It was to remain until the residue of {the} posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings (prepared for them}. They {the posterity of Michael} should bear rule and hold the keys of priesthood until {the} times of restitution come {in which} the curse {of sin shall be} wiped off from the earth[more/from?]{from among} Michael’s seed {to the} fullest extent. Then Cain’s seed {would be} had in remembrance, and the time {would} come when that {curse of sin} should be wiped off {from among them, as well}.
You might wonder if there is scriptural basis or precedent for this kind of removal of a curse.
One of the primary threads of the Book of Mormon is precisely this.
Way-over-summarized version:
The younger brothers, Nephi, Samuel, and Jacob, are the ones that believe father Lehi when Lehi talks about God. The older brothers, Laman and Lemuel, do not believe, and generally misbehave a lot. When Lehi dies, the older brothers threaten the life of the younger brother, Nephi, when he dares to tell them they are misbehaving. They have threatened Nephi before and even tried to kill him before, so the threats are real.
Nephi is warned by God, and he packs up the families of those who will listen and leaves. After this, there are two groups, the Lamanites and the Nephites.
The Lamanites become indolent and lazy, and practice plunder and even murder as a way of life. As a result, God curses them, or they subject themselves to the natural curse of being separated from the power of God. In order to help the people of Nephi keep from mixing with the Lamanites and mixing the false traditions in with their good and correct traditions, God curses the Lamanites with a "skin of blackness". I lean to the idea that this curse was a natural consequence of their chosen way of life. But this mark of the skin of blackness is not the only distinguishing mark.
Fast forward four hundred years or so, and many of the Lamanites are converting to the true belief in God. And the curse is being taken off, both as to their understanding and traditions, and as to the skin of blackness. And they begin to mix pretty freely.
Unfortunately, the Nephite society has been going bad in the meanwhile -- so much so that members of the Church of God express surprise at the inversion. A Lamanite prophet named Samuel even travels to the Nephite cities to warn them that they have been far too long indulging in the evil traditions.
And there is a bit of back and forth until signs are given of Jesus' crucifixion in the old world, which signs of his death result in a lot of destruction in what is now the Americas.
After the destruction, pretty much no one is left but believers, and then, maybe a year later, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ visits and teaches them what He taught the people in the old world.
And for 200 years after that, there is what we would call an ideal society. And they are all together as one group. No Lamanites, no Nephites, no dark skinned, no light skinned, no rich, no poor, just believers in Christ.
Brigham Young knows this. Most of his audience should know this.
I suppose there will be some who will complain and wonder why the Lamanite traditions could not be allowed. Wouldn't that be bigotry?
Plunder. Take what you want if you can. Might makes right. If somebody dies in the disagreement about whose right it is, no big deal. Murder is a crime, but only if you don't have a reason for it. That's some of the false traditions of the Lamanites. Oh, and that the Nephites were bad because they ran away with all the good stuff, so it was okay to kill them.
Some traditions can be recognized for being bad without it being bigotry.
Who is Michael's seed?
Brigham Young would have been referring to this:
... wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, ,,, [some explanatory text, and then a long list of prophets and patriarchs];
And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days; ... (Doctrine and Covenants 27: 5 - 11+.)
I know that among other traditions, Michael is someone else and Adam is a different angel. That's their traditions. Brigham Young is referring to what we believe.
Remember that I have pointed out already that Cain's seed is not just the African races. It is not just the races with lots of black skin pigmentation. Those who joined themselves to the KKK would also be among the children of Cain, as would many of the carpetbagger politicians who decided to ride the bandwagon of power to political position in the South when the war was over.
Not all the white bureaucrats who packed up their belongings in carpet bags to go to the south and participate in reconstruction were evil opportunistic bureaucrats who were merely taking the opportunity to gain personal power. And not all the whites who did not fight the KKK actually sympathized with the KKK.
And, of course, there were people of other political and moral persuasion among those of fairer skin. Not all the whites were children of Cain, but there were a lot of the seed of Cain among them.
I cannot say from where I sit typing this, whether my comments will help anyone in particular to understand what Brigham Young was saying here. All I can do is try.
But if you can understand what I have said, you can understand that when he continues with
Now then, in {the} kingdom of God on earth a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one one jot nor tittle of priesthood.
he is not talking strictly about race. He is still talking first about the traditions, the culture, the unwillingness to yield to God's will in things of this world, among the Africans -- and by extension, among all the seed of Cain.
Now I ask for what {should we look}? For upon earththey was{there are} the true eternal principles {that the} Lord Almighty has ordained. Who can help it? Angels cannot.
Again, the laws of nature are the laws, the true eternal principles, that the Lord God Almighty has ordained, as they apply in our mortal world -- our thermodynamic sphere. Even angels cannot break them. The may know more about them than we do, but they cannot break them.
Only Jesus can break the bands of death, only faith in Jesus allows us to break the illusions of the power of force over faith.
All powers cannot take away {what} the eternal I Am, what I Am {has decreed}. {He says} I take it off at my pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have until the time comes the Lord says {he can} have it.
That time will come.
They are under a curse. So are we.
They will come and have the privilege of all we have the privilege {of} and more.
I want to emphasize what he has said here.
They are under a curse, but so are we.
Even those who have not followed Cain are under a curse. But even the children of Cain will find repentance,
And all of us, of whatever race, will, in the eternities, have all the privileges that the rest of the children of Adam have now, and more.
In the kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government.
Note that he is talking about the kingdom of God on the earth. Not heaven.
Br. Watt may have made a mistake in recording that as Africans, instead of the children of Cain. Or Brigham Young may have been a little sloppy.
But there's something else I have been somewhat dodging this far.
I know that it is not politically correct to acknowledge any basis for discrimination. Anyone with access to the Internet is, according to the theory, capable to quickly make himself or herself an expert on any subject. No need for training. No reason to question moral strength. People must all be considered substitutable. And that must be retroactive, as if the Internet has always been available.
But, with apologies for poking a pin in the balloon, that's a fantasy. If you don't think so, I have some challenges for you from mathematics. Maybe you know how to write a routine to divide a number in binary in 6805 assembly language. But do you know how to write a similar routine to directly compute square roots by shifts and subtracts and counting in 1802 assembly language? If you have an AI write the routine for you, do you know how to test the program you have the AI write for you? If you have the AI write the test routines, do you know how to make sure what the AI has written will actually test the routines correctly?
We have to allow a basis for some degree of distinction, and of recognizing qualification.
And when we allow that, we have to recognize that certain cultural groups will have less qualification than others, and those groups may statistically tend to coincide with birthplace and genetics.
I personally am willing to call Brigham Young a prophet of God.
I am also willing to state that some members of the church have gone too far in how they interpret what Brigham Young said.
Continuing,
They are the subjects, the eternal servants, of the residue of the children.
In Doctrine and Covenants 19, there is a verse that some find abhorrent and controversial, in which the Lord tells Joseph Smith and Martin Harris that "Eternal" is His name, and that some things which are said to be "eternal" are things of Him, even if they might have an end.
Therefore, I interpret this as saying that the children of Cain can have it given to them from the Eternal God to be subject to the children of righteousness, and to learn the true power of God by becoming what we might call, in metaphor, apprentices.
And the residue of children, through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord, have the privilege of saying to posterity of Cain, inasmuch as the Lord
[is?]will, you may receive the Spirit of Lord by baptism. That is the end of their privilege and no power on earth give them any more power.
The antecedent of "they" above, is the residue of the children of Adam.
Thus, the privilege of offering baptism to the seed of Cain is available to the residue of the seed of Adam. Nothing more is to be offered to the seed of Cain.
But, again, we are not strictly talking about race. We are talking about whether or not people have repented of certain false beliefs and traditions that prevent them from exercising the priesthood of God.
Continuing:
{We can} talk about dark skin.
I never saw a white man {or} woman on earth. I have seen persons whose hair
came white, but, to talk about white skins, {it is} unknown on earth.Some {are} darker.
This entirely undoes any race theory interpretation of what Brigham Young has been saying, or it should.
Look at black eye [eye/aye/I?]
I can only assume that he is offering an example which Br. Watt failed to record correctly or completely.
Evil eye might come to mind, but if he had gone that direction, there would still be quite a bit of stuff that Br. Watt missed.
Maybe black hair. Maybe something will come to somebody.
Continuing:
There is no such things as white folks.
Again, the listener is being told this is not about race.
We ourselves are children of Adam who receive the blessing [far/fair?] enough for us.
"Fair" might seem to fit in, but "far" is what I'm thinking he meant.
The blessings of the priesthood are always limited by the limits of our experience, our understanding, and our faith.
Alma 32, in the Book of Mormon, provides an allegory in which the application of faith is compared to planting a seed, preparing and watering the ground, and having the patience and diligence to watch the seed grow.
Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. ... (Alma 32: 28, 29.)
The allegory continues for a bit, but we can see something here.
Jesus Himself was said to have grown from grace to grace as a child:
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. (Luke 2: 40.)
i could find more specific scriptures, but God provides for as such blessings as we are prepared for, and then He expects us to prepare for greater blessings. This is true regardless of race. This is why I would choose "far" above, instead of "fair":
We ourselves are children of Adam who receive the blessing
[far/fair?]{far} enough for us.
Let me try to work with a few more lines before I take a break.
But let me tell you further.
Let my seed mingle with seed of Cain, {and it} brings the curse upon me. And my generations reap the same rewards as Cain in the priesthood.
I tell you what it
do{does} if he were to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain, {it will} bring not only {a} curse upon them selves but entail it on their children.... get rid of it ...
I look at this, and it seems to me that either Brigham Young or Br. Watt is getting tired.
The last part, is it
{He will never} get rid of it.
Or is it
{It will be very hard to} get rid of it.
Or how about,
{He must fight hard to} get rid of it.
Or is it something else?
Cross-cultural marriages are much less difficult these days. Or maybe marriage itself has been made so much harder? Maybe a little of both?
But even just fifty years ago, even cross-cultural marriages between Americans and Japanese were really difficult, significantly more so in general than marriages within one's culture.
There are two main reasons for the difficulties.
One was that, often, the attraction of the cross-cultural marriage was precisely that one or both partners was not successful at developing socially inside his or her own culture, and the cultural gap provided a way to hide from that lack of success.
The other was that, even with the best of intentions, the cultural differences made for a metalinguistic wall. Even if both partners spoke the other's language fluently, there would be gaps in the metalanguage, in the meanings of the meanings of words.
My example above of power vs. love as the fundamental basis of human relationships is a case in point. Take a guy who has had a severe prejudice against power from when he was young and a gal whose mother taught her that power was the basis of relationships. If they try dating, to the extent that either refuses to accept the other's point of view, the relationship will not go well, no matter how physically attracted they are to each other.
Now, if there were a language gap, they might not even realize the difficulty until they were already committed, and the differences in the meanings of meanings would be the source of argument and mistrust until both of them could deal with the fact that love and even relationship meant different things to the other. And that could take a really long time.
The power of the priesthood of God does not function well in such an environment.
This is an example of how the traditions of Cain could bring a curse on a family concerning the priesthood, a curse which could be very difficult to get rid of.
Not impossible, perhaps, but very difficult.
I think this is about the halfway point in the address, and look how long this has gotten. Giving background on the context from which Brigham Young would have been speaking is taking significantly more time and words than I had thought it would.
I need to take a break, just as things were getting really weird.
When I say weird, the next part is really fragmented, and the topic seems to shift to some really dark concepts. I say seems to, because, without doctrinal background to prevent us, we could really get into theories that would be justly characterized as occult.
I want space to focus on the next part properly.
And I want to get this much posted. I've been working on it for over half a week. Picking up the next part could result in another week or two, and it might even result in enough text to drag the blog engine down into the basement. Or maybe it won't be that hard.
But I need a break. And, if you are serious about your interest in this, you need time to think about what we have covered so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I have no problem with differences of opinion, but seriously abusive comments will get removed when I have time.