It should come as no surprise to MSP readers that Brigham Young made racist statements. As there are 26 volumes in the Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young said a great deal about many things.
I think most current LDS (including Brigham himself) acknowledge the doctrine that sometimes an LDS prophet is speaking as a prophet (i.e., from God) and sometimes they are speaking “as a man” (their own opinion) Please see Jeff Lindsay’s essay about fallibility here. This is acknowledging that LDS prophets are products of the culture and society they live in and fallible.
The US. in the nineteenth century was in general a very racist place. Slavery – the buying and selling of human beings was still legal. I don’t think we will argue this point, I would hope that it’s just generally accepted that racism in that time period was alive and thriving in all segments of American society. Brigham Young was not unique in some of this thoughts and statements about the races, their differences and the “perils” of interracial marriage.
Brigham said some pretty damning things – quotes from the Journal of Discourses:
Examples (obviously, I’ve left out much of the original sermons. You can query for the entire text of the sermons online – just search for journal of discourses and the volume):
“..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.” – JoD: vol.10 p. 110: (March 8, 1863)
Example:
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed.When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. “- JoD 7:290-291 (October 9, 1859)
Many LDS would say that with the 1978 revelation giving blacks the priesthood, institutional racism within the Utah LDS church ended. There was no longer a prohibition on couples of different races getting married in the temple, for example.
But the 1978 revelation fell short (see here) of disavowing Brigham Young’s (and other leaders’) statements. It did not say “Brigham Young was wrong when he said x. He was speaking as a man, not from God.”
The reason I bring this point up, is to ask how can I explain this concept to friends of color or people of awareness? I can’t defend it. I can’t explain that my parents, for example, active LDS members are not racists and vigorously denouce those statements (but they may believe that other things that Brigham said were from God).
An example of the defense would go:
Well, Brigham Young is indeed considered to be an LDS prophet.
And yes, he did say those racist statements.
Yet, active LDS know that he was speaking as a man and not as a prophet in those instances. And they believe that he was speaking as a prophet (from God) in other instances. Members can know the difference through personal revelation.
Without an official statement/apology, it’s up to individual LDS members’ interpretation. One individual is free to believe Brigham Young was indeed speaking from God when he made the statements against interracial marriage – indeed, referring to the death of the individuals in an interracial marriage. This individual can believe this(still have an LDS temple recommend, still fulfill their callings). Whether or not the majority of LDS do not believe that. Whether or not there are many active, temple-going LDS who are interracial couples. Whether or not there are many LDS who are descended from Africans or who are Africans themselves.
Other world religions, Roman Catholics for example, have come out and clarified their positions about past statements and actions of their leaders/members. They have specifically apologized for many former actions (even unintentional ones), compliance with the holocaust; and actions of Catholics against non-Catholics.
Just last year, an LDS spokesperson for the quorum of the twelve offered an apology for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
So LDS apologies and clarifications are not out of the realm of possibility.
While there has been a clear direction to “follow living prophets”; – the term “living” is not clear. (I’ve linked to a talk given by Ezra Taft Benson in 1980 about the fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet). Living or modern could mean any LDS prophet since Joseph Smith, Jr. And I don’t think that something that Spencer W. Kimball (or Ezra Taft Benson) said would NOT be considered from a “living” prophet, as they were both alive thirty years ago. So within thirty years, it’s okay, but over one hundred years, what they said is suspect?
As I think it’s been discussed here before, when is a prophet still considered a living prophet? Does a new prophet (like Thomas S. Monson) need to go back through everything prior prophets have said and specify that LDS still believe that?
Stating that Brigham Young was NOT a modern or living prophet exposes a whole can of doctrinal worms. His life and works are still studied in LDS seminary, primary and Sunday School. So all of his sayings cannot be dismissed as not doctrinal by the Utah LDS church.
What makes more sense is to clarify specific statements, repudiate and apologize.
Indeed. They could stand to do that for a whole slough of statements, including statements from some of those currently living “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators”.
That it took the church 150 years to even admit that Mountain Meadows happened and apologise about it seems to suggest to me that it will take a while longer for them to repudiate things like the treatment of Blacks, gays, women.
I meant to say that the church admitted that they might have had anything to do with the massacre by officially apoligising, not that the church didn’t admit that the massacre never happened.
It seems that the Wall of Infailability is too tall to climb… from either direction.
Don’t worry; It’s all Nonsense anyway.
LDS leaders’ sayings are for PR only, they don’t allow that they might apply to leadership, Only to the rank-and-file.
Hofmann was another example… I see they redacted a pic of him & GBH in the online Ensign (are they asking that members return their paper copies for ‘correction’?)
Pls allow me a follow-up:
Some time ago, I sent GBH a letter outlining why the church should re-name BYU to ‘Juanita Brooks University’… I guess he didn’t have time to get back to me (we all know how busy the prophets are, receiving revelation alone must keep them busy Almost 24.7).
I hardly consider the statement that Henry Eyring read to be an apology. It is a carefully spun statement meant to deflect attention and blame, and to eliminate clarity. This is important because it illustrates a pattern of spin and careful deception that neither Jesus Christ nor his spokesman on earth would employ.
The use of phrases like:
“The truth, as we have come to know it, saddens us deeply.”
Truth does not need to be qualified. The mention of a forthcoming book written by oxymoronic “LDS Church employee-historians” is laughable.
Saying, “We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time,” is like saying to the person we have just punched in the nose, “I am sorry your nose hurts,” rather than saying, “I am sorry I punched you in the nose.”
We LDS have a tradition of just moving on and not commenting on past dumped teachings like BY’s bigotry. While in most cases, I have a major beef with that tradition, with BY’s bigotry, I’m not so sure it not the best approach, because such bigotry was mainstream in his day. In other words, why draw attention to it? JS was ahead of his time on race, BY wasn’t. That said, when it came to the exodus from Nauvoo, BY, warts and all, may have been the only person on the planet who could have pulled it off (rallying the Mormons to leave civilization and saving the church). In short, we are imperfect beings and the Lord uses who is faithful and available at the time. Did BY make some whopper mistakes? Of course he did, but w/o BY neither the LDS church or this blog would exist today.
Where I place much greater blame is later church leaders who didn’t reverse BY on race much sooner, a classic case of the irony of orthodoxy always leading to apostasy. In other words, in any organization mistakes are evitable and orthodoxy prevents reform, resulting in perpetuating the error and apostasy becomes entrenched.
Speaking of school names, I’m much more embarrassed by the BYU Law School being named after JRC, a disgusting mid twentieth century segregationist, than the university being named after BY, a great pioneer leader, particularly because there is no dearth of LDS attorneys who contributed far more to the law than JRC. Again, BY’s views were mainstream in his day; JRC’s were an anachronism in his.
I think a balanced way to address the issue is something like: JS and BY had radically different views on race. JS was an abolitionist who ordained blacks in the church. Later, BY permitted slavery in Utah to accommodate Southern converts coming to Utah and banned blacks from the priesthood and the temple. Later leaders continued BY’s racial policies until 1978…………………. We regret our past leaders didn’t address BY’s errors on race earlier, but that unfortunate era is now more than a generation behind us……………………….
Of course you will never hear that from an LDS authority, as our tradition is we just move on, and in this case that may actually be the best way to handle it.
Steve EM wrote:
JS was ahead of his time on race, BY wasn’t.
The following statement from Joseph Smith doesn’t justify that view:
They have souls? So do animals? Confine them to their “own species” by “strict law”? The correct word for this is “apartheid”. I wouldn’t say Joseph was “ahead of his time”.
This is one significant problem we have when defining when a prophet “speaks as a man”, and “speaks for God”:
Brigham Young:
To quote Elder Mc Conkie:
Here is the problem in a nutshell: Bad revelations must be “forgotten”. Good ones extolled. “Bad revelations” aren’t wrong, just uttered with a “limited understanding”. The problem is that this “limited understanding” is “the word of God” to a specific generation. In later generations it becomes a “limited understanding”. There will be no apology, because to apologise would be admitting that the prophets got it wrong. And prophets can’t be wrong, only speaking with a “limited understanding”, “line upon line”.
When the Catholic Church offered an apology to Galileo, it didn’t say “we spoke with a limited understanding”. Here is what Ratzinger, the current pope, said in regard to past wrongs:
This isn’t an apology for “a limited understanding”, but “not in keeping with the Gospel”.
Has any LDS GA ever said that Brigham Young was “not in keeping with the Gospel” when he said:
Bear in mind too that Mc Conkie didn’t say Brigham Young spoke with a “limited understanding”, only that they interpreted his words with a “limited understanding”.
The quest to preserve apostolic authority shall take precedence over everything. And this is where the Church will lose respect.
Brigham Young’s views about race might have been typical but they were not mainstream. Many Americans disagreed with him. Some argued that former slaves needed to be civilized. Many others came to believe that African Americans were fully human. The sophistication of Frederick played a big role in switching opinions.
Lets remember that Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States twice.
It is probably more accurate to say that Americans were polarized over slavery and racism during Brigham Young’s lifetime and that Brigham Young was an ardent supporter at extremes of one pole.
This an interesting remark, not only because it’s true but because J. Reuben Clark’s racism is, of course, a product of Brigham Young’s.
Clark held attitudes that were no longer acceptable in polite society because he wanted to follow the prophet. When the LDS Church named the law school in Clark’s honor, it recognized his loyalty.
Even today, there are Mormons in every American stake that will advocate the fence sitter doctrine in the presence of Africans and African Americans. Sometimes, although not always, there are other white Mormons who will contradict racist doctrine but the proponents can rarely be persuaded because they feel a duty to follow the prophet and can assert prophetic authority.
Mainstream America and chapel Mormonism have both marginalized racism. The difference is that in Mormon chapels, racism is still not taboo.
As a result, it is still common that our non-European brothers and sisters and their children have to suffer indignities in Mormon chapels at the hands of Saints who are convinced of their righteousness.
The perpetrators and the victims of such language would both benefit considerably if prophetic racism were officially and explicitly denounced.
The reason why Mormonism is uncomfortable with denouncing prophetic racism is, of course, that LDS leaders benefit when the Saints follow their own pronouncements uncritically.
Naturally, current LDS leaders are no more perfect than Brigham Young.
Paradoxically, the Brethren would become much more effective leaders if they were subject to criticism by a loyal opposition. Although so many members are sacrificing years of their lives, it is clear that the missionary program is moribund. Hundreds of units in Latin America are fictional. In Europe, the Church is shrinking. Lately, data have been emerging that indicate that more Saints are leaving than joining in the United States.
The norm of not criticizing leaders is not only sustaining inhumane and offensive principles such as racism, sexism and homophobia but is also weakening the Church.
Thanks for all the comments so far.
Someone, Elder (Oaks)? I believe mentioned that some statements can’t be rescinded because it hasn’t been “revealed” to them yet (from God) to rescind them. i.e., God hasn’t specifically directed the spirit to the elders to make a statement about this.
However I may feel personally about the validity of this, from an active LDS perspective, there are governing decisions that are made all the time without direct revelation (I would assume). To take the CHI for example, is every line in there directly revealed?
I think I could find many scriptures where it says that the membership should not constantly ask for things, but get out and work for them (i.e., make them happen).
Steve #6 – my only concern about letting this specific issue go, with not making a definitive statement about it, is just what Hellmut was saying. That some members may still be mistaken/confused about the official positions. That confusion could lead to discrimination and pain within those families and among the membership.
Since the lay membership are allowed to be teachers of young children, there are no checks and balances (IMO) to prevent a teacher from making these type of statements to children (and the children not understanding that they are not part of the LDS canon). After all, they come from the mouth “of a prophet”.
And many statements have been made about polygamy. Why is addressing polygamy (and BY’s statements on it) more important than these statements on race?
It’s a very difficult position, but one that needs to be addressed (IMO).
Rod, #5: Precisely. LDS leaders are stuck in a Conga line, and only see a bit of the person in front of them.
Just as in our individual-personal lives, it may take an abrupt if not catastrophic event for GAs/COB to ‘wake up’ on behalf of the church; how sad.
Ray, thank you for providing that quote from Joseph Smith.
It’s a fabulous example of a man who was far, far, beyond his time in thinking about race. I think that’s actually a statement LDS could be proud of, rather than evidence that Joseph was as racist as anyone else in his day.
Too bad the rest of Mormon leadership didn’t follow-up on the great beginning Joseph made.
Seth, I plucked the quote from BlackLDS.org, though it comes from the HC, so Black LDS obviously also like it. I’m still not sure, though, what you or they think “advanced” about confining people to “their own species”.
Do you think Obama would like this?
I agree Seth. Ray’s JS quote shows just how far ahead of his time Smith was, well over 100 years! I’ll add that some here seem to be confusing generations. The civil war and 14th amendment that ended slavery were more than a generation after Smith. The war ended slavery only in rebel territory. Slavery didn’t end in Utah (and all US states and territories) until the 14th amendment.
I brought up slavery in Utah because I think it is directly related to the priesthood ban. (Subhumans need enslavement, can’t lead and don’t belong in the temple). That was BY’s view and the view of most folks in that generation.
Again, IMHO, it is later leaders who conserved BY’s error that are far more culpable than BY. I judge people by their times, not mine.
Hellmut,
I think you’re on the money regarding our leaders fear that criticism and correction of past leaders’ errors will undermine current leaders. They like enjoying an infallibility doctrine w/o actually having one.
I also agree we are shrinking, the GAs are practically chasing members out, and the missionary program is stuck in the 1920s. What’s the activity rate for single twenty-somethings in the church now, teens or single digits? In other words most of a generation is lost, and our leaders are asleep at the switch. That’s a lot of topics for other posts.
I’m still not so sure Joseph was ahead of his time, Steve. William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was an example of a Christian opposed to the British slave trade. The Quakers were the ones who developed the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in the 1780s. Wilberforce converted to Christianity in 1784, and joined this society. This is what he later said:
Other commentary on Wilberforce:
This was no mere ideology about what should be done, but “muscular Christianity” in action. Wilberforce was “a man ahead of his time”. Not even Lincoln held such firm views about abolition. The list of the opponents of slavery is very long, but Joseph Smith is not there. Another radical opponent of slavery was William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln, who wrote in 1853:
Compare that to Brigham Young’s statements.
Steve, Hellmut:
That’s precisely the problem. What I don’t understand is why they don’t see that this is doing far, far more harm to the church than good. In the short run, it is useful to have members who will follow the will of the leadership unquestioningly, but in the long run, the very fact that the leaders are fallible men will mean that they will eventually do something so damaging that it will wake people up to the realisation that they’re not really speaking for God in all (most) things, and that will cause far, far more problems than if they were to simply be honest and up front about the past mistakes and about their own fallibility and lack of constant revelation in all things. If anything, the past actions and statements of people like Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Mark Peterson, and Spencer Kimball (and Boyd Packer) have shown us that they speak from themselves and their own understanding (and biases) far more often than they speak for God. This is, I think, quite obvious to anyone who looks at some of the things they have sold as “doctrine” at the time, only to have either science prove them wrong, or later church leaders contradict them. If they are all really speaking for God, then God is one confused, contradictory being – and that just makes even less sense.
Oh come on Ray. You can always, ALWAYS, find someone more progressive. What does that prove?
I’ve read plenty of the rhetoric from the pre-Civil Was period and Joseph flat-out, hands-down, was firmly in the progressive camp. Sure, his ideas were not unique to him and other abolitionists and forward-minded people were making the same points he did. That doesn’t mean Joseph shouldn’t get credit for being on the right side of history.
Considering Joseph’s background, upbringing, and the surrounding society, I find myself pretty darn impressed with him. In my mind, he was on the correct side of history. The fact that he hadn’t reached a 1990s level of racial enlightenment bothers me not at all.
Is the fact that some portions of the quote are unrepeatable by politicians in our hyper-sensitized racial culture supposed to even be relevant to discussion of a guy who lived in the late 1800s? Get some perspective here.
It’s a good quote, regardless of whether it can be used in an Obama speech.
I mean seriously, I can’t believe you are even trying to make the point that Joseph Smith was not “progressive” because he didn’t rise to the level of William Wilberforce – one of the most outstanding forces for emancipation and racial rights the world has ever known.
Are you freaking kidding me?
I’ll add to Seth’s rebuttal to Ray that Steward was against Lincoln releasing the Emancipation Proclamation, so much for that strong abolitionist. People are far more complex than a single quote. In any event we know JS ordained blacks and allowed blacks in the temple and BY reversed JS, so I’m not sure why Ray attacks JS on this subject when it was BY that F-ed the whole thing up.
Speaking of F-ed up, I did a post on my blog about Monson F-ed up by picking another white apostle when thirty years after lifting the ban, we are long overdue due for a Qof12 that starts to look like the church at large. The post wasn’t well received.
Seth,
You wrote:
Consider this excerpt from the Elders Journal:
This is the very opposite of what Wilberforce was doing. Joseph’s abolitionist stand was political. His real view is reflected in the above Journal. The point is, that no matter how one argues for Joseph’s “progressive views” on this subject, the Church adopted a policy/doctrine based on Joseph’s teachings (unless you want to disown Brigham alone on this one). No more, no less. A hundred and five years after Joseph’s death, this was a First Presidency statement:
In a December 1969 statement the Brethren omitted some of the more crude remarks made by BY, but still wrote:
This belief didn’t materialise out of thin air. The official position about the “curse” now is, “we don’t know why”. The “fence sitting” doctrine is gone (though this is still believed by some), obviously because it was spoken with a “limited understanding”.
The reality seems to be, Seth, that this was one of those revelations which Joseph characterised (as recorded by David Whitmer) as “some revelations are of God, some of men, and some of the devil’. I would think it has to fit into one of the two latter categories, given hindsight. I am not alone in my thinking, apparently. Armand Mauss (co-author of Neither White Nor Black), is quoted in a news article titled “Black Mormons Resist Apology Talk”, as saying:
What does “public repudiation” mean? It means something that has not yet happened. And it means that until a repudiation is made, many Mormons will continue to believe that the prophets were not “really” wrong, and are now saying “we don’t know why”, when in fact the Church still “really” believes this “fence-sitter” doctrine, but is sort of doing like President Hinckley’s PR statements on polygamy and the idea that God was once a man. That is why this idea/belief lingers.
In reply to Steve, I quote again from Bush and Mauss, Neither White Nor Black:
Ray,
Again, JS ordained blacks and allowed them in the temple. BY reversed JS. Why go after JS when BY was the f-up? You just come off as someone w/ an axe to grind.
Steve wrote:
The ordinations stopped during Joseph’s lifetime. You may need to read the book I quoted, Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church (Signature Books,1984)
As far as axe-grinding, this is what I wrote in my blog:
By the way, I like swearing Mormons. As C.S. Lewis once wrote: “True friendship is born when one says, ‘you too? I thought I was the only one’.” 🙂
I’ll be back later. Got some axe-sharpening to do.
I am not an expert on Joseph Smith. My impression was that he had a hard time denying people (least of all himself). I find it plausible to assume that he recognized the humanity in people when he encountered them.
Although I know so little that my opinion can be easily swayed, I imagine Joseph Smith to be more egalitarian with respect to race than the average European American.
On the other hand, Wilberforce is, of course, the real prophet. He led public opinion and focussed it at great personal cost.
The abolition movement is a useful corrective to our self-understanding. Compared to some other religions, such as the Quakers, for example, we have done very little in pursuit of Christian values such as neighborliness, peace, hope, and justice.
Unlike Joseph Smith, Wilberforce was independently wealthy and had the means to reflect on life and to indulge into his passions for the public good. Joseph Smith would have starved had he tried to live like Wilberforce.
Still, many people with modest backgrounds made tremendous contributions to abolition and other reform movements. Just think of Frederick Douglass or rank and file Quakers.
Be that as it may, I think it is fair to say that Joseph Smith’s attitude about Black people was not ahead of his time. He might have been on the right side of the question but his views were neither innovative nor influential outside of Mormonism. With respect to race, the Smith quotes are friendly but there were a lot of people that were more principled and more rational a generation before Joseph Smith was born.
I do find it, however, useful to contest Mormon heritage by contradicting Brigham Young’s language.
I’m actually aware of some of the ambiguities in Joseph’s stance.
A good deal of anti-abolitionist stuff was said – mostly in an attempt to assure angry Missourians that the Mormons were not going to take away their slaves in the process of building up Zion. It was an incredibly charged atmosphere with the LDS in danger of losing land, homes, and even their lives.
On occasion Joseph seems to have caved to the pressure. But viewing the overall picture, I remain of the opinion that Joseph Smith’s views were in the progressive camp.
By the by, I agree that it’s inaccurate to call Joseph an “abolitionist.” Joseph’s presidential platform proposed to BUY slaves from the Southerners using revenue from the sale of western lands. He seems to have shared Abraham Lincoln’s view that quick emancipation would cause a lot of societal upheaval that benefited neither white nor black.
History will judge the merit of his views I guess.
By the way, I’ve encountered Ray elsewhere, and I’ve never pictured him as particularly “anti-Mormon.”
Perhaps Ray, you could say you are about as “anti-Mormon” as Joseph was bigoted racist? 😉
Seth, I don’t believe Joseph was a bigoted racist.
(mounts soapbox)
My own father (1905-1987) was probably more racist. I grew up in a home where I was not allowed to bring black friends home, until I defied the order in my mid-teens. I brought a black friend home, and my father asked me to ask him to leave. I said, “if he goes, I go too”. The “ban” was lifted (without revelation) 🙂 (No apology for past behaviour was offered, however)
Joseph seems to have been the “victim” of scriptural misrepresentation and popular prejudices of the time. But, after all, he was a prophet, so in this instance I can only think he was “speaking as a man”, even if he believed this came from God (a lesson to be observed here). That doesn’t excuse the results of this misguided belief, the effects of which are still present today, if not as bad as before 1978. I’m only telling the Church what I think the continuing consequences may be if there is no formal repudiation. I don’t plan to demonstrate with a placard in Temple Square, and the plane trip is too expensive anyway. Racism exists in my country too, but fortunately no religion has ever told Aboriginals that a “flat nose and black skin” is a sign of a curse against them, or that they are descended from Cain and represent the devil on earth. The government may have believed something like that, but Australian Aboriginals probably have over-representation in Christian churches here, because they are a very spiritual people who were formerly attached to the land, like the American Indians.
Who today can ever think of going back to the pre-1978 ideas? A formal repudiation would enhance respect for the Church beyond measure, and put in place those members who still hold to these offensive ideas, in any shape, overt or covert. As Bishop Tutu quoted, “an injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere”.
(/soap box demount)
re Repudiation:
I’m afraid LDS leaders (think = act like) any back-peddling or renounciation of prior leaders’ sayings will call into question their credibility; they don’t seem to think that being straightforward about goofs has anything positive in it for them.
It’s been so long since I’ve seen/heard anything ‘outside the box’ from ‘the guys’ … I just can’t remember.
Funny! . . . and classy.
I’m having a hard time understanding why/how Joseph Smith’s opinion plays into this argument. I understand that he restored the church, and that most of the revelations in the D&C were through/from him.
But why should what he said or felt have any impact on what BY (acting as an LDS leader after Smith) said? Is it that we’re trying to prove BY was wrong from what JS said or implied?
While we’re at it, we Mormons may wish to consider apologizing for Mormon’s “racist views.” I’ve occasionally wondered if the “racial passages” in the Book of Mormon are little more than a reflection of ancient world prejudices and sensibilities.
Seth, I’m assuming you’re joking about your last comment on Mormon’s racist views. But I don’t think you should. The BofM is a racist book. And, it’s considered god’s infallible word by Mormons. If my logic doesn’t fail me here, then:
God’s word is unchanging. The BofM is god’s word. BofM is the doctrinal basis for Mormonism. BofM says black skin is a curse. Ergo, Mormons think black skin is a curse.
By the above logic, any Mormon who claims the BofM is god’s word is also a racist (or at least worships a racist god). I’m guessing, Seth, you aren’t really a racist (though your statement in #20 “Is the fact that some portions of the quote are unrepeatable by politicians in our hyper-sensitized racial culture supposed to even be relevant to discussion of a guy who lived in the late 1800s? Get some perspective here.” wreaks of color-blind racism: http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=395). But the BofM is a racist book. I don’t think Mormons should repent for it, but they may want to stop believing it’s the word of god.
“BofM says black skin is a curse. Ergo, Mormons think black skin is a curse.”
Actually, no it doesn’t.
And if you want to call me colorblind, feel free.
Ray,
I haven’t read the book you sight, but it is my understanding that there are no direct links attributing the priesthood ban to JS, but only second hand ones after JS had passed. I strongly suspect such links are bogus or a case of wishful memories in support of BY’s bigotry, just as there are people today who wrongly cite BY as the originator of the WofW being a requirement, when that is utter rubbish! HJG made the four don’ts (not the WofW) the requirement it is today, and people wrongly cite BY to give the boneheaded policy more authority. I feel it was likly that way for the priesthood ban.
Steve,
The link is in the fourth point quoted by Mauss and Bush. See my post No. 24.
There are others, but I’d have to search for them later. It was Joseph who originally made the Ham connection. Brigham Young merely taught what Joseph taught him.
these things show if not prove one thing:
LDS leaders have a tough mountain to climb to go against the grain of what had been previously said or thought…
witness the lasting reverence for white shirts, etc.
LDS leaders just can’t get out of the box. If they need to abandon a thought or opinion-practice, they just let it slide into oblivion (sexual practices); I can’t recall one single solitary item they’ve ever renounced.
One more: When I went to Ricks (Yes, I’m that old), it was ‘commonly understood’ that the Idaho Falls business people talked DOM into moving the college to Idaho Falls…
Yet, it was never done.
Guy wrote:
LDS leaders have a tough mountain to climb to go against the grain of what had been previously said or thought…
As has been noted here many times, it’s tough because it will be viewed as compromising apostolic authority, and there shall be no compromise. The “integrity” of “the Brethren” shall take precedence over a repudiation of one of the worst religious tenets ever devised.
The “long promised day” may have arrived, but neither American Indians nor Blacks have become “white and delightsome”. In the Book of Mormon this happened overnight. So one might well ask: “What’s the difference?” Is the “curse” still “on”?
Even more reason for a formal and unreserved repudiation. It’s simple: “We were wrong.” Not just about the timing, but about the whole mythical charade – We taught false doctrine.
and as we all know, ‘AUTHORITY’ is the basis of the LDS church, not Christian living, NOT Christian basics, principles, values, or even concepts.
the man behind the curtain has been exposed, and he’ naked.
Seth, really? I think we’ve debated this before, but come on:
2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
If that isn’t calling black skin a curse, what is it?
As for color-blind racism, it refers to the tendency today of people to say things like, “I’m not racist, but I don’t see a problem with blacks living with other blacks in neighborhoods and whites living with whites in their neighborhoods.” It’s basically not recognizing the racial prejudice and discrimination inherent in such actions. Your statement is kind of similar by saying that our culture is hyper-sensitive to race. Why shouldn’t it be hyper-sensitive to race when race is used to discriminate against people still today?
Glad the website’s working again.
profxm, I’m not a personal fan of Affirmative Action and that stuff, but I’m also not too worked-up about it, one way or the other. But really, why derail the thread with a fruitless political debate.
I think the Book of Mormon is far more egalitarian on the race question than you are giving it credit for. The book makes an almost clinical observation of how certain appearances were regarded by an ancient people – the Nephites. The verse you cite does not equate skin color with the curse. Skin color is cited as an incidental that easily may or may not be construed as being an inherent part of “accursedness.”
But then you’ve got to look at the overall message of the REST of the Book of Mormon, rather than selectively citing a few juicy prooftexts.
What about the example of the “people of Ammon?” What about Helaman’s 2000 sons? What about Samuel the Lamanite? What about Jacob’s sermon where he tells the Nephites the Lamanites are, in some sense, actually morally superior to them? And while we’re at it, combine that with Alma’s sermon to the poor who had been cast out of the synagogues.
Racism is not a vibe I’m getting from the book, and I think there’s real objective evidence that the OVERALL message of the Book of Mormon is not racist, but rather pro-civil rights.
That said, the racist read is distantly plausible. Certainly, many early Mormons used it as fodder for distinctly racist views. But I don’t find it convincing.
And by the way, no, I’m not joking about Mormon’s “racist views.” I think it’s entirely possible he had a few racist views of his own. I don’t have solid evidence of that, but I don’t dismiss the possibility.
This will always be the problem of dealing with writings of ancient peoples. You have to tackle old-world views on reality as well. We don’t dismiss Aristotle because of some of his unenlightened views (and he did have more than a couple – by the way). Why dismiss Mormon for his?
sethR:
do we (pretend to) hold Aristotle and other thinkers-philosophers to the same standard(s) are ‘Prophets of the true and Only Living God’?
I am somewhat astounded that you make such a comparison….
In the totality of these things (using the Black & White thinking SOOOOOOOOOOOOO Prevalent in Morland) they either get it RIGHT or WRONG, no middle ground… so as Not to mislead others, we necessarily reduce that choice to RIGHT, don’t we?
Yes Guy.
We ARE supposed to hold them to the same standards as Aristotle.
Especially if you no longer believe in the prophetic calling. It’s the only intellectually responsible position a non-member can afford to take.
SR:
Aren’t Prophets supposed to have Higher Standards … and ppl have higher expectations of them/their sayings-teachings, conduct-behavior in general?
Whether or not the BOM was/is racist, whether or not JS was racist, it sounds to me like both of these arguments are what is preventing the leadership in SLC from renouncing what BY said?
Because in order to renounce BY, they’d have to address these other issues?
I would argue that they are separate issues. I think some of these statements from BY can be easily separated and denounced. If the LDS leadership wants to get into those other issues, I’m fine with that. But I think they are a little more grey.
What’s wrong with taking small steps?
I like the ads for Hebrew National(?) hot dogs:
“We answer to a HIGHER Power”….
(oops) I just looked it up; it reads:
‘we answer to a Higher Authority’.
seems appropo to-for the LDS experience, doesn’t it?
also, the church “Could” rescind the advice they gave just after the Phood was announced as available to Blacks… that people shouldn’t marry cross-race (Yes, it Did Happen!).
I thought it was weird if not outrageous then, and still think it was mostly ethno-centric; but my ‘elder wisdom’ does suggest that for some, cultural if not ethnic homogeniety might have some (fleeting?) positive aspects.
(I almost forgot) correcting certain things from the past would suggest a bright line between the true & ‘untrue’; Mormonism strongly prefers ambiguity.
The article and comments are an interesting read. Everyone, even prophets, are largely products of their generation (as is easily seen in the Old/New Testamente also). Due to JS’s lack of education and world experience, he relied heavily on the opinions and expertise of others – some to his credit and others to his demise.
If true scripture, then the BOM and D&C are where a clear line can be drawn between JS, BY, and the Lord – which is why we rely more on what is in those scriptures than weird or obscure quotes or doctrines put forth by these individuals. Political views can change over time, scriptural views cannot. Ironically, the issue of race and how it is to be applied towards the priesthood is not defined in these scriptures – which is why historical leaders relied on sectarian notions regarding race. Notions, that I agree, should be clarified and apoligized for.
Based on the geography of the church, race was not even a relevant issue until the civil rights movement and church growth demanded clarification. I do not fault JS or BY for their ignorance on this issue, which, for them, was mostly a non-issue.
Like Seth indicated, I think that people who promote the dark-skin curse as racism in the BOM, have probably not read the BOM in full. There are far far too many examples of the dark-skinned Lamanites being blessed and exhalted over the white-skinned Nephites for this argument to be valid. By the end of the BOM, it is the white-skinned Nephites that are anhialated, not the dark-skinned Lamanites. And, it is the Lamanites who are promised the greatest blessings in the last days. Clearly, the BOM prophecies that the gospel, in the last days, will be spread to “all nations”. You know, the Gentiles first, then to the Jews. “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”
Re: Snoopy “Like Seth indicated, I think that people who promote the dark-skin curse as racism in the BOM, have probably not read the BOM in full.”
Really? While going to BYU in 80s every single religion professor I had made it perfectly clear that ones skin color was either a blessing or a curse. (This idea is by every known definition to social scientists and historians RACIST) Dark skinned people, Africans, Native-Americans, and Polynesians were cursed. And are Seth and Snoopy implying that President Kimball, a Mormon prophet probably did not read the BOM in full since he clearly saw being white skinned as a blessing? Please read what he had to say on skin color:
Spencer W.Kimball, speaking at the General Conference meeting, October, 1960. “I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today….they The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. “At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.” Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923.
Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.” From Bruce R. McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine”, 1958 edition, pages 107-108
Bruce R. McConkie’s was required reading in my Book of Mormon class in 1982. Does the Mormon God really require punishment by skin color? Does the Mormon God really have people with dark skin to be servants in heaven! (Mark Petersen believed in this so much he put the “servant” part in capital letters.)
” If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.” Race Problems–As They Affect The Church, By Mark Petersen, August 27, 1954.
The current LDS prophet, Thomas Monson, should, indeed, repudiate racist statements by previous church leaders and apologize for bigoted church policies. I give church leaders credit for apologizing for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It seems logical that the one sure way to overcome racism is through intermarriage, which ironically, is ever more prevalent in the church as a result of young missionaries falling in love. After all, aren’t we all of the same family (children of God)? Eternity is a long time, and I feel safe in predicting that racism and prejudice (against gays and women, to a lesser extent) will steadily decline in future church policies and statements from leaders. One must have faith, after all. Current editions of McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” are slimmer that the ’58 volume as a result of extensive editing to remove offensive statements (eg. implying that the Catholic church is the “great and abominable church of the devil.” The Book of Mormon no longer refers to Nephites as “white and delightsome,” rather “fair and delightsome.” Prophets are as flawed and fallible as the rest of us and readily acknowledge that fact. The Church must pragmatically be at the forefront of the movement to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in order to expand our proselyting in foreign lands.
What’s ironic about it? You’re right that this works against prejudice for the whole extended family and ward of the people who end up marrying someone from the foreign culture they learned to love on their mission.
I am an investigator. This is EXACTLY what I was trying to tell a family and two Missionary’s last night and last night. I am not only Native American, I am African American. This is the hump that is very difficult to overcome. I am very upset because it seems that LDS members take this for granted and/or don’t even know it. Then I was even told that I should be greatful for being in America no matter how it happened. While 7 generations ago, my ancestors were slaves? It is not right! They bred my ancestors like animals…they put bags over the heads of the man and the woman because sometimes they forced a son to mate with his mother and daughter to mate with her father. That tells me that this issue is not even thought about as a whole in the LDS community. This Prophet not only talked of my race but the physical features and disposition of my race and I am supposed to accept that? let me tell you that just because some of you may have those couple of Black friends that have no problem with it, that tells me that all parties are ignorant and I demand an apology, clarification of specific statements, repudiation for the racism in the church. i will go so far as to say that GOD does not like it either and wishes the same. I know this for a fact because I FEEL it. Do not take this racism for granted.
@63 True, people telling you that you “should be greatful for being in America no matter how it happened” is a stunningly offensive display of ignorance.
If you don’t mind my asking, why are you taking the LDS missionary discussions? If they’re this wrong on race, shouldn’t that be a deal-breaker?
@63- If I had to guess, I’d say because his wife is enthusiastic about looking into the religion. I wish him the best in his efforts to help his family find the best religion for them.
@64 A deal breaker? Of course not. In the second paragraph of this post, the writer states:
“…LDS (including Brigham himself) acknowledge the doctrine that sometimes an LDS prophet is speaking as a prophet (i.e., from God) and sometimes they are speaking “as a man†(their own opinion)” ….”This is acknowledging that LDS prophets are products of the culture and society they live in and fallible.”
@64 Does this mean that we should throw out the entire New Testament written by the Apostle Paul? by studying Paul’s own words, such a position can be disproved
“I speak not by Commandment … and herein I give my advice” (2 Cor. 8: 8-10).
2 Corinthians 11:17 17 In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool.
Paul’s “advice” undoubtedly was good, but it certainly was not always the Word of God. Even if he was led by The SPIRIT, why would the SPIRIT lead Paul to say that he was speaking from his own mind? His own opinion?.
If we are going to persecute one, Brigham Young, than why not the other, The Apostle Paul?
The Devil, as some of you call it, is a greater salesman than you or I. But think, if a man is admitting that he is speaking as a man, specifying that it is not God, even if he be led by the SPIRIT, he is still being LED and it is the Man’s Interpretation of what he is being led to say.
If Brigham Young was speaking as a man than yes, of course it is fallible but does not mean the whole church or doctrine is wrong…at least not in this instance. I am not defending what was said by Brigham Young more than I am trying too empathize with him and do as I was ordered to do by God of The Holy Bible as well as all of you..
God has commanded ALL OF US to Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on things we don’t agree with in other beliefs.
Didn’t the BIBLE tell us all to live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to us?
God has called us to live in peace right?
Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to THEM.
To do it just as God has called us to Him. Each of us will give an account of OURSELVES to God right? So why should Brigham Young’s OPINION have any bearing on my desicion to study with LDS or not?
Why do we forget that the BIBLE specifically told us to stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up our minds not to cause other people to sin based on what they see us do or say. The Bible teaches that if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean! Right??????? If your brother in The Lord is distressed because of what you believe, you are no longer acting in love if you keep shoving your beliefs in his face.
Well i’m not going to let what i believe destroy my brother for whom Christ died. I refuse to allow what I consider good to be spoken of as evil. The kingdom of God is a matter of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. How can we live like this if we continue dogging a religion or soemones belief rather than pray for them? Anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men Right? No? well i will personally try to make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. I will not destroy the work of GOD for the sake of opinion. It is wrong for a man to do anything in front of someone that causes taht person to sin. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to DO ANYTHING else that will cause your brother to sin!
So whatever YOU or I you believe about these things the bible says to keep theses things between yourself and God. The man does not condemn himself by what he approves is blessed Right? It’s the man that has doubts about what he is being taught to believe that is condemned if he believes in it anyway. because his belief is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin right?
Some people like to argue from opinion when I pose these questions but it would behoove them to use biblical fact in this situation…that is what the SPIRIT leads me to say.
Before anyone responds, if they be compelled to, let me remind you that the Disciples were stopped by Jesus once because in their own opinions, a certain man was CASTING OUT DEVILS in HIS name because the man did was not part of their circle.
Jesus said “Do not stop him,” “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me.”
Mark 9:38
My concern is with the LDS teaching their members more in depth about this from a closer study of it themselves without them taking these statements for granted, KNOWING what they believe so they can defend their FAITH properly, BOLDLY, and WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
So IN MY OPINION, Thomas S. Monson should refuse to have anything to do with Brigham Young’s racist statements, and reject as untrue or unjust other than for scholarly study, and to have the Church apologize for these statements because very quite frankly, I KNOW this is what GOD wants, and this is not my opinion, this is what GOD says. Mormons are GOOD people and were there for me when no one else was and I will never forget them and discredit them for this man’s opinion’s and in my opinion, neither should any of you…
@64 I am a student of GOD and so even if I get baptized or not by the LDS, it is my DUTY to learn from them as commanded by the LORD and I will Love them regardless of the outcome. So whatever I think is “WEAK” FAITH by the LDS, I will pray for them and love them and not stop them because they too love Jesus Christ and say nothing bad about HIM. So Brigham Young’s followers weakness, for whom Christ died, is not destroyed by my knowledge…
1 Corinthians 7
2 Corinthians 11:17
2 Corinthians 13:10
Romans 14
…and I thought I would add this…
Romans 15 King James Version (KJV)
15 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.
3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.
4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:
6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.
I hope this answers your questions…
@63 i answered your questions accidently adressing @64 so I hope you read that as I alsol answer @64 here…
I am the one enthusiastic because I am a Student of GOD and I am to learn of all religions until I am compelled to get baptized by one…or not. LDS was there for me when no one else was…GOOD PEOPLE to me…when no one else was there for me. So if they do not figure it out, GOD has compelled me to bring this message to all that talk about this. Do you believe me?
@64 P.S. I am not married..I live by myself…
Michael Primus open your eyes, when Paul made his statements as recorded in the bible he made clear which statements were from God and which ones were his own thoughts and ideas.
In the case here B Young makes it clear he is saying this is the law of God! please see the quote. It is not his own word but he claims it is the law of God and will always be so. This teaching of his is so out of step with the teachings of Jesus Christ, even if he was talking about the white man having sex with concubines. Jesus protected the adulteress from stoning.
Michael Primus, you appear to be so brain washed and willing to lie to yourself and others for the purpose of defending your church from the indefensible. I have found that same trait from a number of Mormons, they are not willing to read or think anything other than that which comes from their Apostles.
I’m glad someone put snoopy in his place, always blaming anyone but the doctrines/prophets/church. I know these types of Mormons, the current prophet would tell them to be racist and they would oblige.
It’s not racism if it comes from GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I refute the analogy that sometimes Brigham Young was speaking as a prophet and sometimes as an ordinary man with regards to things spiritual or church related.
For example if Brigham Young were to say, ” I prefer peanut butter and jelly sandwiches over ham sandwiches,” then he would be speaking as an ordinary man.
But when he says,”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.â€
He is speaking as a prophet. If his comment was contrary to God’s WORD on the matter, then God would surely have him removed as a prophet because as we all know, God will not let a prophet lead the flock astray with false doctrine.
Since he remained Prophet, Ergo: What he said regarding the Black race was / is true to this day.
And please don’t say ‘Well..God changed his mind”
He’s not known for doing that! LOL!
Unfortunately the present Day Mormon church is slowing falling into Apostasy for disavowing and sometimes outright saying as ‘untrue’ the words of the early Prophets to appease the modern ‘world’ and gain favor with the creation rather than worship the Creator.
Jack @ 72:
Are you actually that committed to a truthiness for Brigham Young in 19th-century America that you are against miscegenation in 2015? That is a fascinating perspective, to be sure, and an indication of a complicated brokenness that Mormonism instills in its members.
By no means am I a Mormon apologist, and I think you are absolutely correct that Young at the time was speaking as a “prophet” — but there is another possibility, as I understand it. Just like how the Church was forced to end polygamy because the modern world would otherwise end the Church, it is also true that upholding anti-miscegenation “for all time” was not something Young could realistically pronounce as both a “man and a prophet.” At no point does a prophet speak “100%” for God — any message from God alters at least somewhat as it passes down a telephone line from person to person (or in this case, deity to person)… so I think the point the Church is trying to make is that prophets are not infallible. They don’t speak sometimes as men and sometimes as prophets, but rather always as both “men and prophets.”
(FYI, I think the whole thing is bogus, but I just wanted to engage your logic here.)
Alan@73
If the early prophets of the church were the actual ones to have restored God’s one and only true church on earth again, then wouldn’t you think their teachings would be infallible / unalterable?? What’s the point of a restoration if the prophets can add ‘their own 2 cents worth’ to God’s word and those opinions may differ from what God actually said?? God is not a God of Confusion.
Look at the old testament prophets for example. Did Jesus say anything to the effect that because what they wrote was 100’s of years old that it no longer applied in Jesus’s modern day? Of course not.
In fact a read of Mathew 5:17: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” backs up the claim that Jesus accepts the Old testament as God’s ‘Unalterable’ word.
Your analogy that:
”At no point does a prophet speak “100%†for God — any message from God alters at least somewhat as it passes down a telephone line from person to person (or in this case, deity to person)”
is seriously flawed.
Again, if God’s purpose was to restore his true church once again on the earth after his first attempt was thwarted by ‘man’, don’t you think he’d make sure that he got it 100% right this time with no room for confusion / error??
About polygamy, if you believe that Joesph Smith was a true prophet of God then you must accept this practice.
Along with many other controversial teachings. And when the church bowed down to pressure from the US government to stop this practice, is when, in my opinion, they, again started to fall into apostasy. They didn’t believe that God had the power to protect his own work.
God commands his followers to obey kings, magistrates, governments, etc, etc..but only as far as they don’t go against God’s teachings.
The modern Mormon church has allowed the ‘evil’ of this world and pressure from liberal zealots to alter / apologize for many of their early core beliefs. Damn shame. Joesph Smith is probably turning in his grave.
Good Luck.
Jack, are you an FLDS member? I’m just trying to get a sense of your belief system.
I’m not an expert on how this works according to LDS belief, but my sense is that the Church is not supposed to be considered a perfect reflection of Heaven, but rather an imperfect copy on Earth. Therefore, even with a prophet that’s “never supposed to lead the Church astray,” it’s always at least a tiny bit off track because this isn’t Heaven. Prophets are always able to keep the church “on track,” but it’s never fully there (leading to the Mormon obsession with perfectionism). The living prophet is also not wholly bound to the words of the past prophets because God speaks in the present.
But then our discussion here is lot like the difference in constitutional law between viewing it as a “living document” (that changes) or the need to maintain original intent when things are stated unequivocally. The difference is the Church has no “constitutional amendment” system, and simply has to wallow forevermore in its historical difficulties.