[In honor of Black History Month 2014, each Monday in February Mormon Coffee’s blog post will address a topic related to racism in Mormon history. Today guest blogger Lynn Wilder kicks off the series.]
Delbert L. Stapley
In January of 1964, LDS apostle Delbert L. Stapley wrote to LDS Michigan Governor George Romney urging him not to support the Civil Rights Act; it would bring the integration of blacks. Of course, the apostle pointed out that he did not speak for the church. Stapley wrote that three U. S. Presidents and a friend who had disagreed with the Lord’s voice on this matter met an untimely demise. He justified his counsel to Romney with the words of Joseph Smith from two sources. Here’s a sampling:
“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270)
“…the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come…” (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 438)
According to these passages, Joseph supported equalization but not integration. He wrote that the sons of Canaan (descendants of Cain) were cursed. It would take an act of God to remove that curse. The implication is it was an act of God that placed the curse in the first place.
In February of 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination according to race, religion, or sex. Four years later, Dr. Martin Luther King—pastor and Nobel Peace prize winner–was martyred for his role as a leader in the movement. After his death, black preachers continued to call for full integration of blacks into white restrooms, buses, schools, jobs, and neighborhoods. A full ten years passed after King’s death until the Mormon priesthood, eternal marriage, and temple endowments were offered to the few black church members. Prior to 1978, blacks could only hope to be servants to the more righteous in the hereafter.
Roots from Joseph Smith
To imply, as the recent LDS Race and Priesthood statement on lds.org does, that racial bias began in the Mormon Church with second prophet Brigham Young is inaccurate. Although the priesthood ban for blacks was not in force during the founding prophet’s lifetime, the seeds of its justification were planted by Joseph. The Book of Mormon (1830) teaches that dark skin is the result of a curse for sin. The Book of Moses (1832-33) teaches that blacks descended from Cain. In the 1835 Book of Commandments, Joseph Smith added a statement (now D&C 134:12) that the Saints pledged not to “interfere with bond-servants…such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust…”
Later in the Book of Abraham (1842), Joseph introduced the idea of “the right of Priesthood.” In other words, some could have it; some were restricted. Pharaoh was said to come from the cursed Canaanite lineage that could not have the priesthood.
Abraham 1:21 “…king of Egypt [Pharaoh] was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.”
Abraham 1:27 “…Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood…”
It was Joseph Smith who taught that dark skin was a curse from God for iniquity. He was the one whose Book of Abraham taught that certain blood lines were denied the priesthood power of God. It was Joseph who supported segregation and did not want men to interfere with slavery. The 1842 Book of Abraham and the Southern converts to the church were the final nails in the coffin for any abolitionist teachings from Joseph.
—
Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 2
If the Foundation is Rotten, All that Joseph Smith Built Tumbles (aka Part 3)
I’ve always appreciated the comments Kate makes when we discuss this particular topic.
Not having ever been a Utah Mormon, or any type of Mormon for that matter, I don’t have an insiders view of how LDS/SLC Mormons thought about blacks.
What I can pick-up however, is that this institutional racism within the LDS church had a profound effect on how the average Utah Mormon viewed people with dark skin. If someone has an inferior position in the church, those who hold the superior position will be condescending at best to the “inferiors”.
I know we’ll have our typical LDS response here but I think it’s about time that the rank-and-file Mormon just give it up, admit that this most perfect church isn’t perfect and was indeed practicing spiritual apartheid.
But they can’t admit that the church isn’t perfect because if the church was wrong about this, then what else might it be wrong about? We’re told by the Mormon hierarchy that they just can’t figure out how this ban on blacks got started. How about with Joseph Smith?
So I guess in modern day Mormon-speak, this would be considered the prophet’s opinion or perhaps even folk doctrine:
Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the following:
“There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less…. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.”
Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67
And also this……………………..
Mormon leaders have taught that aeons ago the time came to present a salvation plan for those of God’s children who would eventually advance to a mortal state. Two of Elohim’s sons, Jehovah (the pre-incarnate Christ) and Lucifer, presented their respective salvation plans for mortal man. According to LDS President Harold B. Lee: “ Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved without glory and honor of God. The plan of our Savior, Jehovah, was to give to each the right to choose for himself the course he would travel in earth life and all was to be done to the honor and glory of God our Heavenly Father” (Stand Ye In Holy Places, p.219).
When Lucifer’s plan was rejected, he rebelled against his brother and father and persuaded a third of God’s spirit children to join him. Led by Michael the archangel, the remaining spirit children of God would join in what is known as the war in heaven. Lucifer would lose and become known as Satan; his followers then became demons. Both would be cast out of heaven.
Unfortunately this battle had casualties of another sort. According to LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, some of those who fought on God’s side “were more valiant than others Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin…The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence” (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.). According to Brigham Young, it was Joseph Smith who classified these people as The Seed of Cain. Young said that “Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but ‘the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'” (The Improvement Era, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.105).
As a consequence of their lack of valiance, these spirit children of God would be banned from holding priesthood authority when they finally received their mortal bodies here on earth. This sanction would make it impossible for them to enjoy the blessings of exaltation. In other words, they would not be allowed to become Gods in eternity, nor would they have the ability to procreate in eternity.
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_blacksandthepriesthood.html
This is a topic that has such a long paper trail that it would be good for LDS folks just to give up, admit the obvious and stop trying to justify what their church believed and taught.
We can see where this is a core belief of the restored gospel. The LDS “prophets” even reached back into the pre-existence to provide a rationale for their belief that blacks were not fit for the priesthood. This is what the Mormon religion believed, taught and institutionalized.
I always find it fascinating how this religion can have a basic core belief of the restored gospel and just change it. We also saw this with plural marriage which was suppose to be a requirement for a man to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
But what’s an average Mormon suppose to do when they are taught that their church is perfect and it turns out that it isn’t. That’s the real issue here. If a Mormon can’t do the Mormon Mind Meld and somehow make this all OK then they won’t be long for the LDS church. Once a Mormon figures out that the LDS church isn’t perfect and the pathway to an individual to become a god, it’s all over.
I thought I’d do a little search to see if I could find anything the FLDS teaches on this matter. I’ve always contended that if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were alive today they would be leading the FLDS. There’s a real continuum of beliefs within the various sects of Mormonism so it’s a little difficult to determine who has the real true blue restored gospel. It’s all a ruse any way, but it’s not too difficult to see where Smith’s religion led.
For example when looking at Warren Jeffs:
Jeffs taught, among the most evil gentiles in the world are the African Americans and the Mormons. “How has the devil used the Negro race in our day? Today, the big, neat thing among the young people is the rock music, heavy metal music, the rap music. Even the white people that play it were taught through the Negro. The music from the gentile world, with the fast beat and bad words, is from the black race. . . . If you partake of the ways of the world today, you are partaking of the ways of the black race.” (WSJ 11/15/95)
The FLDS believe that the Mormons became “the great and abominable church of the devil” when in 1978 they allowed blacks to receive the priesthood. FLDS leader, Leroy Johnson taught his people that the devil appeared to Mormon prophet Spencer W. Kimball in the Salt Lake Temple when he received a revelation allowing blacks to receive all possible blessings in the Mormon Church. “Uncle Roy, the true prophet at that time, knew what had really happened. He said the personage was Lucifer, sitting in the temple of God, as God, deceiving the people. The revelation that he wrote was that the blacks had the right to marry whites and they could go in the temple and receive the priesthood and blessings of the church. Uncle Roy said, when that revelation was received, that Mormon Church became the great and abominable church, the most wicked church on earth. . . . All churches have joined together and are doing what the Mormon Church is doing in today’s world. All churches have done the same.” (WSJ 11/15/95)
http://flds101.blogspot.com/2008/05/flds-beliefs-101-gentiles-or-outsiders.html
Well this looks like good old fashion Mormonism. They even hold to Adam-god and polygamy. Like Joseph Smith, even fourteen year old girls aren’t off limits to marry.
It seems to me that the more that is uncovered about the history of the Latter Day Saints, the more it looks like an ever changing faith based on the whims of men.
This whole issue with Negroes and Mormonism can be understood when one considers that
this was a important doctrine in what Mormon leaders call their ” restored gospel ” of Jesus .
By teaching that prior behavior in heaven was a reason why Blacks had their color here on
earth , Mormon leaders were doing what they claim was their ability as modern day officers
in Jesus’ church —- providing fresh spiritual truth to clarify doctrinal issues . The Mormon
people obediently embraced such , because they feared giving a place to the Devil by doubting
their leaders teaching . The Mormon people were deceived . We are warned to beware of men
in the latter days who come teaching aberrant doctrine — . 2 Tim 4:3,4 .
Mormon leaders are such men .
Mike,
That’s the point. This doctrine was fundamental to Mormonism and goes all the way back, in their minds, to the pre-existence where a group of spirit beings made a bad choice. The result of their bad choice was black skin. Now how in the world can modern day Mormons flip this? It doesn’t work. If this was a fundamental doctrine, as was polygamy, then that’s the religion. That’s what the prophets and apostles of the religion received from the Mormon god, supposedly.
Now any Mormon becoming aware of what their church taught and believed regarding the legacy of dark skinned people and excuses it, that’s more than not OK. I don’t want to hear any of this, “But the church does a lot of good” nonsense.
At various times going down the road, Mormonism flipped. When Joseph Smith dumped the Book of Commandments, he lost a bunch of people. When he got into polygamy, he lost a bunch of people. When the LDS church then dumped polygamy, it lost a bunch of people. Mormonism is all over the lot when it comes to its legacy of ever changing doctrine.
I would say to any clear thinking Mormon. Get out. Get out now and find truth in Jesus Christ not some distorted and perverted religious system.
MJP,
That is a fair assessment of Mormonism . The Mormon people are a sincere people who have
been detoured by their leadership into accepting a imitation gospel . It’s a classic picture of
Jesus’ warning in Matt 24:11 coming true — men claiming to be prophets deceiving people in
the latter days , teaching for doctrine the commandments of men . The result : Eph 4:14 .
The Mormon people deserve better .
Falcon ,
It was a very important part of the “restored gospel ” of Mormonism . Mormon leaders have
said that there are certain truths that have been hidden whose time to be revealed is in the
latter days , the last dispensation . This doctrine with the Negroes was one such ” gospel truth”.
Sadly , we know that what Brigham Young introduced into Jesus’ alleged church was nothing
more than false doctrine borrowed from some of the other churches in his day . Brigham
carefully wrapped it up , labeled it as part of Mormonism’s ” restored ” gospel , and his flock
accepted it . Brigham Young fulfilled 2Tim 4:3,4 .
You asked , ” Now how in the world can modern day Mormons flip this ? ”
simple . If their leaders play cleverly play word games and now call it ” folklore” or ” theories ”
most rank and file members will simply buy it . After all, these submissive followers have been
told that to criticize their leaders teachings is to suffer from a ” spiritual sickness ” ( that’s their
words not mine ) . So better to just follow their leaders and not bother to test their teachings by
God’s word —1 Jn 4:1 . You’re right about the Mormon mindset that can justify any perceived
problem with their leaders teachings that it’s all ok because of all the good activities the church
provides makes up for it , etc . This is a very sad scenario and one in which a false prophet can
get away with most anything .
Thankfully there have been multitudes of Mormons who have discovered the truth about their
leadership and have walked out the door . Hopefully like Lynn they will all come to Jesus alone
and find rest for the souls —Jn 14:6 . No secret temple rituals, no rendering allegience to a man
as God’s mouthpiece for all today . Jesus alone can satisfy — and save .
This concept of the “curse of Cain” in the Mormon religion doesn’t just go back to the 19th century but for Mormons it goes back further; in fact it goes back to one of their fondest beliefs, the pre-existence.
It’s in the pre-existence where Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother procreated the Mormons as spirit children and where they now are assisting their spirit off-spring in finding their way back to their personal exhalation as gods and goddesses in the Celestial Kingdom.
If the narrative can suddenly be changed where by “Negros” where said to be less valiant in a war in the pre-existence resulting in their black skin and now that’s not true, what else about the narrative can be changed?
Well for one thing the part of the program requiring the Mormon male to have more than one wife in order to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom can be changed also. It can now be that the Mormon male must just support the notion of polygamy but not really practice it here on earth.
It doesn’t take long for Mormonism to begin to break down and like Lynn has said in her testimony, there’s just too much on the “shelf” and it begins to collapse. The “shelf” is the place where Mormons put things that just don’t make any sense in the LDS religion.
The problem is that many of these things occupying the shelf, were things that had a profound effect on how people thought and behaved. In the case of blacks being denied the priesthood, the resulting attitudes of Mormons towards the unworthy black skin people was shameful.
I would say to any Mormon who is beginning to have question regarding the veracity and truthfulness of the LDS church, look away from this very flawed religious program and to Jesus. He will do for you what the LDS church can’t. Provide for you eternal life with the real Heavenly Father.
We can narrow our comments on this topic to blacks and the priesthood specifically and then apply it to how blacks were viewed within the various Mormon sects including the SLC/LDS.
But for me it’s more than that. To me it’s just one more indication that the Mormon church at its foundation, is a make believe fairy-tale.
I know that may be a little too in-the-face to a Mormon who is at the beginning stages of contemplating the veracity of the LDS religion/church, but at some point it needs to be addressed. John Dehlin of “Mormon Stories” fame, did an episode on why people leave the LDS church. He pretty much laid it all out but his conclusion was a safe one for someone who wants to hold on to their faith in Mormonism.
He basically said that while all of these very damaging things were true, that’s no reason to leave (the church). He concluded, after all, the church does a lot of good.
When examining this topic of blacks and the ban in the priesthood, can we hold it up and say, “Well the church does a lot of good?” In-other-words can it be legitimately claimed that the “good” the church does far out weighs the lies, deceit and in this case religious racism?
This can’t be undone by a new revelation. It was a foundational doctrine of the LDS church. It was either true or false regardless if the Mormon god decided to rescind his original decree. Folks with black skin were, according to Mormon teaching, not valiant in the war in the pre-existence. This Mormon fact doesn’t change just because the Mormon authorities decided to allow blacks into the priesthood. Blacks, according to the LDS/FLDS Mormons got their skin tone because of a character flaw in the pre-existence. So the LDS church lifting the ban makes little difference when the reason for the ban hasn’t and can’t change; that is unless the LDS church is prepared to admit that their perfect church with its perfect leaders weren’t perfect. And if that’s true then the whole deal is a sham………..which we already know.
Truth matters. I was taught all of the racism growing up. Not long ago my own Mother said that the reason they have black skin is because Satan needed representation on the earth. It’s still a widely held belief among Mormons. How does one reconcile this with the recent statement made by the LDS Church? How dishonest do Mormons have to be to just put this on the shelf? If I were still LDS I know I could not reconcile this. It’s part of Mormonism, part of what makes them unique.
The even greater sin in my mind is the LDS first presidency and their 12 apostles. Most of them are oldsters. They grew up believing the racism, they taught the racism (in a loving way I’m sure). How do they put out a statement basically saying they don’t know where it came from or why it was believed and practiced? That is a lie. In fact, it’s an in your face lie. How do Mormons not see these dishonest men for what they are? Where is Jesus in any of this?
Mormons need to take a step back and really look at their leaders. Gone are the days when LDS leaders held firm to beliefs, practices and doctrines. Gone are the days when LDS leaders were “in the world, but not of the world.” Now it seems they will lie, cheat and steal just to be a part of the world. To be accepted by the world. Well for me, truth matters. That’s why I’m no longer LDS. The truth is in God’s Word, one only has to open it and truly seek.
Normally I stay out of the fray here – but this one really gets me. I heard a recorded message of Jeff’s several years ago. It was a talk to younger children. It was some of the most evil talk I have ever heard. He was telling young children not to be friends with black children or brown children, because they would hurt them and steal from them and so on.
Of course you can hear the same stuff from Arnold Murray and others from the anglo-israeli cults. It is interesting how many different groups picked up on this crap from the late 1700s through the mid 1800’s.
I have a good friend who was raised JW, became a Mormon and eventually was drafted into the NFL out of BYU. As is a black man, I asked him how they treated him when he was there (mid 80s). He said they always treated him well. I think many in the church know how wrong their teachings were, but as mentioned above, I think there are many of the older generations who still believe in the curse of Ham. The missionaries I talk to have not been racist – the LDS is trying to put this whole history behind them. Most of the kids don’t even know what was said. Very Orwellian at this point. However I make it my sacred duty, not only to share the Biblical Gospel with every Mormon I can, but when I see a Mormon of color – I am in the zone!. I want them to read with their own eyes what their “prophets” said about them, and about some of my children and grandchildren btw. To Mormons with a conscious, we should lay this out for them every time.
Joseph Smith was never an abolitionist. This is another Mormon Myth that many have tried to legitimize in recent years. Smith did not really want to “equalize” the blacks either, (not in the United States at any rate). He was for shipping them down to Mexico where he said that “all colors are alike”. What he wanted to do with the blacks was to use them against the enemies of the United States in wars. They would be “equal” to fulfill that obligation, but then would be forced to immigrate out of the U.S. Smith absolutely believed in the Curse of Cain Doctrine, but as with other “revelations” claimed that it came from God, for Jo taught that Mormonism contained independent “revelations” and any TRUTH that the Christians may still have had for doctrines. This was never “folklore” in the Mormon Church, it was Doctrine they claimed came direct from God.
As Lynn points out, they still teach racism in the Mormon Church right out of their scriptures. (D&C 134) For the bond-servant “revelation”, was specifically directed at the blacks held in bondage by white men in the South. As per Jo and Brigham, United States slavery was a “divine institution” that could not be meddled with. If the Mormons had had their way, the Civil War would never have happened, because to them, it was against the laws of God to interfere in ANY WAY with slavery, and putting men in harms’s way to free them was against the law of God. What about the conscience of the black man? Apparently, that meant little to the Mormons, because they thought it beneath them to advocate for the freedom of the black man in America.
I concur with Kate and honzi.
This doctrine cannot just be swept under the rug like it was a “think piece” by some wild eyed, out of the main stream Mormon. This doctrine was fundamental to the Mormon faith. The excuses of “that was a long time ago”, it was all just “folklore”, “we don’t know where it came from” and finally the obligatory “all churches of that time were racists” won’t stand as excuses.
I went to Catholic school in the north/mid-west in the 1950s and I never heard anything taught that would even be remotely tied to racism; certainly not something like the Mormon doctrine of the mark of Cain. I never even formed an opinion about “Negros” because I didn’t have any experience with people of color.
So I won’t buy this Mormon excuse of “everybody did it” because everybody didn’t do it. j
Mormons, other than the FLDS, keep trying to leave their passed behind while in many ways still hold on to it. They want the one true perfect church with perfect leaders who would never lead them astray and when they speak the thinking has been done…………..and at the same time try to find a hole to bury things like the ban on blacks in the priesthood, polygamy and Joseph Smith’s proclivity/lust for women other than his wife.
Lynne,
Does context mean anything? Why do you not include the rest of the paragraph from which you quoted Joseph Smith?
I will help you out here. Here is the paragraph in full:
“Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. Elder Hyde remarked, “Put them on the level, and they will rise above me.” I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant? ……. Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” (DHC Vol 5, Chap 12 , pp 217)
Gee.. that sounds a little less racist, huh? Actually, a lot less racist. But I understand that you need to promote the narrative that the critics of the church love so much.
Did you consider Joseph Smith’s letter to John C. Bennett in 1842 wherein he wrote:
“Respected Brother:—I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country—mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?
Your friend,
Joseph Smith.”
Here is an statement he made in 1844:
“Born in a land of liberty, and breathing an air uncorrupted with the sirocco of barbarous climes, I ever feel a double anxiety for the happiness of all men, both in time and in eternity. My cogitations, like Daniel’s have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence “holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.” (DHC Vol 6, Chap 8, pp 197-8)
During his 1844 Presidential run, Joseph Smith proposed phasing out slavery over several years by having the federal government buy slaves from their owners to set them free.
“Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave States, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for “an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole etermity of bondage.” (DHC Vol 6, Chap 8, pp 205)
Do you think it is insignificant to misrepresent another human being in this way? If you go onto a public forum and make statements about a person being racist and bigoted, do you think you should study more completely the statements the person made on the topic?
A person is in a very dangerous position who thinks that God condones dishonesty or this type of smearing just because you think the ends justify the means.
All FoF has shown is how inconsistent his first prophet was/is. Back and forth, back and forth. For the Mormon authority on this issue, turn to Mormon scriptures. Lynn has shown from the D&C and the BoA just what was/is taught about Blacks and guess what? It’s still in the scriptures! Don’t Mormons cry that the only authority is the LDS scriptures? Their prophet’s words are over ridden by the scriptures? Mormons always cry that their prophets only used their opinions or that was folklore and isn’t believed anymore, why should we give any merit to what FoF has posted? I honestly believe that Joseph Smith had an agenda with the above comments that he made.
I know what I was taught and what I believed for 38 years and I know what every Mormon I know has been taught and still believes. Lynn has it exactly right.
Kate,
How about we have somebody review your life and picks the worst moments for you personally and broadcasts those as a true representation of who you are? How would you like that?
That is precisely the approach here- Lynne says Joseph Smith was not an abolitionist and did not want slavery changed. She should not have had to look very far- the very same paragraph that she quotes- to get a more clear perspective of Joseph’s views of slavery and those of African descent. It is very clearly a sentence or two taken away from the more balanced statements by which she desires to skew and alter perceptions.
You seem to be saying that accuracy really doesn’t matter. What I post- the fuller context of Joseph’s Smiths statements and views- doesn’t matter. Somehow, 170 years later, you have the means of judging the motives and heart behind Joseph’s statements. That is just fantastic!
Don’t get me wrong. I know that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to alter to any degree the minds of any critic here on anything relating to Joseph Smith or the church. And that is not my intent. Once again, my intent is simply to provide a more accurate and reasonable perspective on people who lived 170 years ago. Reasonable and intelligent people can judge for themselves when they have more information.
It looks like Mormon apostle Stapley’s authority on the issue of Negroes in his church rests on
Joesph Smith’s teachings , and he throws in some fear tactics as well in his attempt to persuade
Gov Romney to consider a change of view on Blacks .
I wonder why Mr Stapley did’nt cite Joseph’s successor , Brigham Young instead . It seems that
in 1964 the Mormon church’s doctrine about Black people was more in line with what Young
( and many other Mormon prophets believed ) taught than Smith’s . All in all , considering the
unstable array of teachings about Black me that has come from Mormon leaders since 1830
it’s no wonder the current leadership won’t be forthright in how they’ve handled the teachings
of their predecessors in leadership .
Thank goodness that during Joseph Smith’s tenure as President of the church , that a black man
named Elijah Abel was ordained to the priesthood . But later leaders claimed that this was all a
mistake , and said that when Joesph Smith found out about it that Abel’s ordination was declared
null and void . Is that true ? Apparently Brigham Young refused Abel’s request to be sealed in
the temple to his wife/family . Why ?
It’s sad that Mr Abel was tossed about by men who he thought were real officers in Jesus’ church
sad too that he did’nt simply allow the true apostles in the N.T. to inform him about coming to
Jesus and being saved by faith in Him which allows any sinner to be accepted by God and receive
eternal life and the fullest of blessings thereof in heaven in God’s home there —Jn 14:6 .
Can Joseph Smith be relied upon to see what the Mormon church taught about Blacks for so
long up until 1978 ? Trying to center this issue on Joseph Smith’s view is to not do this whole
issue justice , and can cleverly allow some Mormons to divert the attention away from his
successors . These men drifted into false doctrine about how and why Black men were not
allowed all the privileges that white Mormon males received in their priesthood .
This is yet another good example of why Mormon leaders can’t be trusted as reliable guides
as teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ . Because like Brigham Young and others in the past
would’nt take correction on their false teachings , today’s leaders also won’t take the right step
and admit that false doctrine was promulgated for over a century by numerous of their
predecessors . Until that is done unambiguously Black persons especially should’nt trust them
as teachers of the gospel .
The good news is that Mormons can turn from their leaders and experience freedom from
following these men , because as Kate said — ” truth matters ” and ” where is Jesus in any of
this ? “
FoF,
I have a question for you, but something tells me you wont answer me.
Why should we trust you and believe what you say? You dodge/avoid questions, You have at time disagreed with what your prophets/presdients have said or taught. According to the Prophets/presdients, they speak for God alone, and your not on their level.
So with that said, why should we trust you over what your leaders have said/taught.
I wonder if we can judge Hitler. He died 70 years ago…
RickB,
It is not about trusting me. It is about using your brain, being objective, and a little due diligence before smearing people publicly.
Yea, with Mormons it’s always a case of “……that doesn’t count”. Same old run around. On the one hand these Mormon prophets are the absolute bomb and on the other they’re just a bunch of regular guys giving their opinion and sort of pawing in the dirt with their feet in a sort of “Oh Shucks” manner.
In-the-end, Mormons like our buddy FOF just sort of make up a religion they want to believe in and interpret things in a way that’s comfortable.
I don’t know maybe FOF ought to use the “feelings” test on his prophets to determine if what they have said has some legitimacy.
Remember FOF most of the people you are doing battle with on this blog were former Mormons. You can’t spin and blow smoke and think they don’t know what you’re up to but they’ve been in the burning in the bosom camp and found that it was nothing but heart burn.
FOF,
You’re emotionally stuck on Mormonism and because of that it distorts your view of reality.
There is no disputing the facts regarding what Mormonism has taught, practiced and institutionalized regarding people with dark skin.
The Mormon church clearly taught and believed that there was a war in heaven and those who chose the wrong side were cursed with black/dark skin i.e. “the curse of Cain”.
Come on, man! You need to get a grip that this 19th century Mormonism is embarrassing and needed to be changed in order to fit the social fabric of modern life. It was the same with polygamy and the temple rituals for that matter.
At least the FLDS, as wrong headed as it is, sticks with Joseph Smith’s program.
You are a Mormon apostate, right?
If you’re not following the words and edicts of the prophets than you have gone astray from the restored gospel and you have no chance to become a god?
Well actually no because the restored gospel is no gospel at all and these men who teach such a thing are like those the apostle Paul called out in his letter to Timothy (First Timothy 1:3-4). In First Timothy 1:17 tells us that Jesus is our King, he is eternal, immortal, invisible and the only God.
This myth of the “curse of Cain” is just one more example why Mormonism is false. You need to turn away from these myths and turn to Christ and be saved.
FoF:
You tell Rick: “It is not about trusting me. It is about using your brain, being objective, and a little due diligence before smearing people publicly.”
What is your concern? Protecting Smith from smear attacks, or finding the truth? Here again we see a sentance that shows that truth is not necessarily as important as the esteem your faith gets.
And when you say using your brain, being objectivity, and a little due diligence, how much have you used those tools to understand what it is we are telling you about our faith?
Fof,
“How about we have somebody review your life and picks the worst moments for you personally and broadcasts those as a true representation of who you are? How would you like that?”
Two things:
1. Poor, poor Joseph Smith! How dare anyone judge or call him out on his words and actions? Poor little guy.
2. If I ever claim to be the sole mouthpiece of God, the only true prophet, seer and revelator of the only true church, then ABSOLUTELY judge and call me out on all my words and actions. Please take everything and compare it to the Word of God and if it or I am found lacking, reject it and me!
“That is precisely the approach here- Lynne says Joseph Smith was not an abolitionist and did not want slavery changed. She should not have had to look very far- the very same paragraph that she quotes- to get a more clear perspective of Joseph’s views of slavery and those of African descent. It is very clearly a sentence or two taken away from the more balanced statements by which she desires to skew and alter perceptions.”
Wrong. Joseph’s last sentence negates all he said above it. He was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Did you not read the actual letter? Delbert Stapley tells Governor Romney where to look. He guides him to those very statements you seem to want to downplay. He tells him that after reading it, go to the last paragraph and give it some real thought. Who wrote that last paragraph? Joseph Smith. Delbert Stapley clearly believed what he had been taught and he used Joseph Smith’s teachings. No getting around that.
“You seem to be saying that accuracy really doesn’t matter.”
Are you kidding me? I actually said truth matters. Accurate truth that Mormons turn a blind eye to. Your church is full of racism and it’s still in your scriptures, the ultimate authority. The mark of Cain, Blacks not holding the priesthood, less valiant in the pre existence, etc. Why aren’t you addressing these issues instead of trying to make Joseph Smith look innocent in everything Mormon? Doesn’t the recent official statement on Blacks and the priesthood put out by your leaders bother you at all? They just don’t know about all of this or what, where, when or why? If LDS leaders are truly this ignorant of Mormon doctrines and commandments from God aren’t you afraid to follow them? Being as clueless as they are?
“Somehow, 170 years later, you have the means of judging the motives and heart behind Joseph’s statements. That is just fantastic!”
Didn’t I read where another poster said you are often the pot calling the kettle black? Well here it is again. I have no means of judging the motives and heart behind Joseph Smith’s statements after 170 years but you somehow you do! Just fantastic!
Kate,
There is a standard of integrity that should exist within anybody making claims about other people. The importance of that standard when making those claims publicly cannot be overstated. It is very obvious that this standard does not exist within a great many critics of the church, including many of those here.
This uninformed article at the beginning of this thread is not about Delbert Stapley or George Romney. A letter between those two people is simply used to refer back to Joseph Smith and his supposed anti-abolition teachings. It doesn’t matter if Delbert Stapley took a sentence of Joseph Smith out of context to make a point. If you want to claim that Joseph Smith was against abolition using a letter from Stapley, then due diligence requires that the full context of Joseph Smith’s original statement be examined. And it appears Lynne Wilder did not do that. Or, she did and chose to take the sentence out of context anyway.
Truth can stand on its own. If Joseph Smith was really against abolition, providing a more full view of his statements should support that truth. But it doesn’t. You seem to be arguing that because you think Joseph Smith was a bad guy, representing him accurately does not matter. And that is exactly what I am pointing out as hypocritical and dishonest. It doesn’t matter if is me, or some random person on the street, a president of the United States, or somebody you don’t like. Criticizing other people is a big deal in my opinion. And I believe we will be judged as we judge others, just as Christ said.
I am not judging the motives and heart of Joseph Smith. I am providing the context and statements that have been taken out of context so a more accurate understanding of the man is available. I don’t have to say anything good or bad about him. I am showing how atrocious and sloppy the standards are among his critics. It is dishonest and unintelligent. There is no balance whatsoever among you guys in evaluating evidences. Everything has to be negative and bad about the church and its leaders. Even if you have to rip things out of context. Anything to portray them as negatively as possible. Now- use your brain and see that I am not claiming Joseph Smith was perfect or anything else. I am calling you guys out for having no integrity in your arguments. It is as if you can’t trust truth on its own, you have to spin, limit, and manipulate information to promote the perception you desire.
I am not addressing the recent statement of the church and the other side topics you bring up because this thread is about Joseph Smith, specifically.
I see there is, as always, absolutely no response to the quotations I posted. Just pivot and try to spin the same thing over and over.
It is supremely hypocritical and ignorant to be so snide and judgmental of folks who lived 170 years ago who were raised and lived in a culture and environment that you are very unfamiliar with. So Joseph Smith advocated a temporary form of segregation. OK. By today’s standards, that could be considered racist. But in his day, he was very much an abolitionist and likely understood that the situation could not reasonably be made perfect overnight- it would take time and steps to remedy the slavery and racism issue. But I do not expect you to see that or understand that. You guys are simply not reasonable when it comes to anything LDS.
What about Hitler? Or alternatively someone we all view as positive such as Abraham Lincoln. What about someone more contemporary, such as Osama Bin Laden?
If you are suggesting we shouldn’t judge people based on different times, I ask you where does this logic start and stop?
Finally, be specific in where Smith was not perfect.
Lynn Wilder included two LDS quotes early in this post and summed them up:
The fuller context of the first quote (the one faithoffathers seems upset about) does not alter the summation provided by Lynn at all. Whether the context was part of a discussion about oppression or not, Joseph’s words show that he “supported equalization but not integration.”
Lynn built her case, starting with Joseph’s statement on equalization. It moved to Joseph’s comments/teachings on the curse of Cain, then into Joseph’s writings found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Commandments, and finally the Book of Abraham. Her conclusion:
The charge that Lynn skewed Joseph Smith’s comment about equalization by taking it “out of context” is groundless; this accusation is just a diversion created in yet another misguided attempt to rescue the Prophet.
FoF,
You really need to go back and read Lynn’s article. It is about the roots of racism in Mormonism. She brings up the recent official statement about Blacks and the priesthood. It’s not just about aunt tye slavery or whether or not Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. You simply ignore what this is all about, racism in Mormonism and where it started. Your church claims “officially” that it started with Brigham Young and that is dishonest. Why won’t you comment on this? You choose instead to downplay Joseph Smith’s involvement and won’t even touch the real issues.
” I am calling you guys out for having no integrity in your arguments. It is as if you can’t trust truth on its own, you have to spin, limit, and manipulate information to promote the perception you desire.”
Again the pot calling the kettle black. We call your leaders out on what they taught and practiced. We believe they meant what they said, especially when it comes to their “revelations”. You however, cannot seem to take them at their word. You seem to think you know exactly what they meant and to make it all fit the perception you desire, you spin, limit and manipulate information. You aren’t fooling me. I have been trapped in the Mormon bubble and I know where you are coming from. I have since learned to call a spade a spade. No longer do I spin, limit, and manipulate information to promote the perception that I desire (true prophets of god and the only one true church). As I said before, truth matters. I have one question for you regarding racism in your church, where is Jesus in any of it? Where was Jesus 170 years ago in any of what your leaders taught, preached and practiced?
Ya FOF…………..start playing the integrity card.
You, my friend, are on a slippery slope and I see you starting to slide your way right out of the LDS church.
Joseph Smith was a deceitful guy. Come on, he got hauled into a local judicial hearing for scamming people out of money telling them he could find buried treasure in the ground by looking through his magic rock.
He didn’t stop there. The first vision story changed at least eight times and do I need to go on. Here’s where you’re stuck. You so badly want to believe in Smith’s tale that you’re willing to accept any explanation for the evidence that proves the whole deal is just one more Smith scam.
FOF, Joseph Smith was not a prophet, the BoM is not an actual historical account, the LDS church is not the one true church and your current prophet is a fraud.
You just need to face it and move on. You’re embarrassing yourself.
MJP,
You bring up a very good point. A few years ago I toured one of Hitler’s concentration camps in Germany. Towards the back of the camp, mostly hidden, was the crematorium and back beyond that was a wall with bullet holes all through it. That’s where they shot their victims. As I wandered through all of that I can assure you I was judging Hitler and all who followed him and I was judging harshly. Does it matter that it all happened before I was born? Can I not possibly understand the atrocities, pain and suffering he inflicted on millions? The harm he caused?
Joseph Smith caused harm as well. There are millions of people who have been detoured from a relationship with the true and living God. Millions of people lost and wandering blindly relying on themselves for their Salvation. I believe we all have the right to read and study Joseph Smith’s claims and judge them for ourselves, even if he did live 170 years ago. Why then do LDS missionaries even bring up Joseph Smith if all he said and did happened 170 years ago and no one can possibly understand what he meant because it was a different time. That is so laughable. Sometimes Mormon logic is mind boggling!
Kate,
Yes indeed where has Jesus been in any of it?
That’s because Mormonism, as it’s practiced by the LDS sect, is not centered on Jesus. The LDS sect is centered on the LDS church. It is, after all, in the minds of the FOFs the religious system that will make them into gods. The fact of the matter is that Jesus, in Mormonism, is pretty much seen as a valiant older brother. Someone to look up to and emulate.
As Christians we see Jesus as God incarnate. He is the eternal God. In Mormonism Jesus is a created being, the spirit off spring of one of the Mormon gods and one of his many wives.
This ban on blacks in the priesthood has it’s roots in the pre-existence. Listen, if the Mormon narrative, the tale were right, when the Mormon god decided to allow blacks into the priesthood he could have also made them all white in the process. Isn’t that what these Mormon prophets taught about the American Indians; that their skin would turn white if they joined the one true church?
From MRM:
For much of its history, the Salt Lake City-based LDS Church edition of the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. Except for a single edition (1840), 2 Nephi 30:6 has read:
“…their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”
In 1981, the LDS Church decided to change what Joseph Smith called “the most correct of any book on earth” by reverting to the wording of the lone 1840 edition. The word “white” was replaced with the word “pure.” Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption fails to explain (or counter) other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. For example, 2 Nephi 5:21 still says:
“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, and 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.”
Sharon,
Does reading the whole paragraph about ‘equalization’ from which Lynne provided just one sentence offer a different perspective on Joseph’s view on race? Yes, it does. Than why did she not provide the whole paragraph? I can only presume that she desires for Joseph to be viewed in a negative light. And that is dishonest.
She also states that Joseph did not “want men to interfere with slavery.” What does such a statement lead a person to believe about Joseph? That he was pro-slavery. And that is very misleading.
You seem to be skimming those few sentences wherein Lynne misleads her readers. But those sentences are very meaningful and deserve to be erased or explained. It is in telling only a part of the story and only providing select portions of statements that a skewed picture of Joseph is painted.
By the way, here is a little thought on a broader view for you. You guys love to jump on the bandwagon of claiming we are racists. You base that claim upon the early teaching that position and skin color in this life was based upon behavior and faithfulness in the pre-earth life. Let’s just accept that doctrine and view for the sake or argument. Tell me, which is worst- believe that one’s lot in this life is to some degree linked to past faithfulness or to believe that one’s lot in this life is completely arbitrary and that whether God selects one for salvation in heaven or to eternal burning in hell is completely arbitrary? I have no doubt you guys will try to pivot and spin out of that question. But it is true. According to you guys, God is absolutely a respecter of person- granting salvation or damnation completely independent of what a person does or feels or any motivation to do good. I have heard your types insist that Mother Teresa will burn in hell forever while the perpetual adulterer and embezzler will reap eternal salvation because he uttered the right words upon his death bed. You have no ground to lecture anybody about favoritism or racism. What were your religious fathers believing 170 years ago?
Kate,
How ridiculous of you. I provide several statements from Joseph Smith wherein he states his intent to free the slaves, etc. You say, “I honestly believe that Joseph Smith had an agenda with the above comments that he made.” In other words, you dismiss his words conveniently and feel somehow you can judge his motivation and heart when he made those statements. You offer no support for your crazy claim.
That is what I am referring to when I speak of judging other people. Of course we can learn from history and made general conclusions. But you were judging the heart of a person who lived 170 years ago. Please do not try to wiggle out of this as you consistently do.
You respond with, “I believe we all have the right to read and study Joseph Smith’s claims and judge them for ourselves, even if he did live 170 years ago. Why then do LDS missionaries even bring up Joseph Smith if all he said and did happened 170 years ago and no one can possibly understand what he meant because it was a different time.”
And that is what I am arguing- none of you do anything but gulp down what is spoon fed you from dishonest sources with absolutely no further thought or investigation of your own. And you get what you deserve.
Of course, these quotes by me went unanswered by FOF in an earlier thread, so I’ll just copy them to show how wrong he is (once again),
Once again, FOF does not disappoint us with his blather. It was not “theories and ideas”, it was declared COMMANDMENT AND REVELATION AND DOCTRINE. Follow the blind leaders who now deny this FOF, even into a ditch so deep you can’t get yourself out. Notice also folks, that FOF’s explanation exactly mimics the new “explanation” posted at lds.org, given the “unofficial” treatment. LOL. So how can he get a spiritual witness that what he says is true, if his own leaders can’t even step up and declare it, but have to hide behind disclaimers and lowly apologists?
Of course the Priesthood Ban was doctrine. Joseph said so himself in 1836,
Then, in 1842:
Cursed with a black skin, (the slaves) and cursed as to the Priesthood, both of which Brigham Young would affirm.
And here is Brigham confirming and saying it “in the name of the Lord”.
Here are more “prophets” confirming Brigham Young
And Brigham Young CONFIRMS that Mormon Doctrine NEVER came from tradition or was influenced by it:
But of course, none of this is “doctrine”, (to the blind led by the blind), and there is “no explanation” (to the blind), and not racist (to the blind), or perhaps the mentally challenged?
And this one about Smith and his real plans for the blacks (not political posturing) from January 9th:
I see that FOF has come out of his hidey-hole to take a few swings at Lynn. Like many of his past efforts here, he once again doesn’t know what he is talking about. (No surprise there folks). He sanctimoniously claims that,
The only slavery that existed in the Mexican Territory that compromised basically the entire southwest was enslaving Indians (mostly children). The arrival of the Mormons and their hope to use the Indians to fight the US were why that trade was interrupted.
There was absolutely no negro slavery in what would become United States Territory (in 1848) until Brigham Young became the Governor of Utah Territory (1850) who was installed in 1851 and declared it a “divine institution”. Jo Smith did NOT strongly support abolition. That is just a Mormon fantasy.
If Mormons as a whole were “abolitionists” then how did this get into the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, which was voted on as binding to the whole church which was in force through the Nauvoo period and into the Utah period:
This is a far cry from “anti-slavery”. It was totally anti-abolitionist. It actually states that it is “unjust” (which means not morally right or fair to do) in addition to unlawful, to interfere with slaves at all. This included changing the laws to free them. Even preaching the Gospel to them, without permission from their masters. (Which apparently didn’t stop Paul from converting Onesimus, a slave of Philemon.) As for slavery and abolitionism, Jo himself said in 1838,
Jo knew that many “priests” of the day were instrumental in the abolitionist movement. Freedom for the slaves was the WHOLE PURPOSE behind the Abolitionist movement!Read how Jo denigrates those that he proclaims “profess to preach the gospel”, and are abolitionists, below. Just because one does not have slaves, (or befriends a black man) does not mean one is against slavery. In 1836 Joseph wrote this letter which reveals his true thinking about abolitionism and those “priests and their “priestcraft”:
Definitely against Abolitionists, but for slavery (A DECREE OF JEHOVAH) and the Curse of Cain doctrine. When Jo ran for President, he slightly modified his views a about slavery (but only to free them to use against US enemies and then send them to Mexico), which can absolutely be interpreted as political in nature. He still did not change his views about intermarriage:
And Jo’s “equalization” plan? It would be dearly bought by any who were lucky enough to qualify for it:
“Use the negro and indians against our foes”. Make them equal, but separate. Of course this would not really be equal if they were forced from American Society and restricted to a country of their own, would it? He even disses the Hispanics. This is ample proof that Joseph’s views about equalization were simply politics.
Texas came into the Union as a Slave State. Smith was all for it. Smith claimed that some “objected” to Texas being admitted to the union on account of slavery, but said that “THIS WAS THE VERY REASON WHY SHE SHOULD BE RECEIVED”, and was for freeing the slaves ONLY to use against a British Invasion. And how would Smith use the negroes and Indians against our foes if they did not want to fight? Make it a condition of freedom? How is that not slavery? But he was still against intermarriage, so he was still a racist.
What did Jo really wanted to do? Use those with a darker skin as cannon fodder for the Texas War that never happened with England. Then, he would have shipped them not to Texas, but to Mexico, where they would supposedly feel right at home with other dark skinned people. This is not an equalization, it is blatant RACISM, and, says Jo, “If these things are not so God never spoke by any prophet since the world began.” Jo didn’t change his views, he was only hiding behind political rhetoric. By 1843 (while Jo was still alive) they were already ashamed of Elijah Abel.
Jo was consistent that blacks were the seed of Cain, that they were not to be amalgamated, and that they were to basically be gotten rid of. In 1843 Elijah Abel was told not to preach to white people, because they did not want him out in public doing so. He wasn’t treated as an equal, but was just a “colored man” who said he “felt badly used” by those in authority, as the minutes of a Cincinnati Conference in June, 1843 show. Abel went along with it, and the Mormons kept their token negro in line, as they denied him the temple and everything else that went along with his useless priesthood ordination that really meant nothing.
Mormons WERE in favor of slavery. For many years. What changed with Smith? He wanted to be President. The doctrine of Cain was already in place as far back as 1836, and no matter what Jo said about Abel personally, he still viewed his RACE as the seed of Cain, and that was reinforced with his 1842 publication of the Book of Abraham, which David O. McKay once said was the sole basis for the ban.
Only eight months after Jo’s death (well before the 1847 troubles with William McCary & others) this was published in the Times and Seasons:
Where did that come from? Jo Smith. The Church was TOTALLY in favor of slavery. It “DELIGHTED” them. Did you get that, genius? The Times and Seasons article totally links BLACK SKIN with scripture. FOF has a big problem, he doesn’t read or understand Mormon History, Doctrine, Revelation, or for that matter United States History either. Saying that Lynn doesn’t is simply hilarious.
grindael- once again, you are talking to ghosts. Where did I make any claim about the curse not being doctrine or the Priesthood ban not being doctrine? I actually expressed my belief that the ban was a doctrine and was instituted by the prophet in a previous thread. Silly you.
It is you who believe in a God who is absolutely a respecter of persons.
Of course this is the only answer that FOF will bother to post, because he can’t deal with the actual quotes and history that I’ve posted. As for you and your “ghosts”, Hmmm, let’s see, you said,
And, same thread,
You called it a POLICY three times in one paragraph. Some ghost. This line of distraction just won’t work, FOF, and you do this, because you have no answers for the real issue here.
When all else fails, mind read. Mind read and get it wrong, but mind read. Of course FOF can’t back this up with quotes as I do, but that is par for the course. Poor FOF, you are so desperate and bitter.
Kate, not only that, but Hitler lived through a very difficult time in Germany’s economic past. Many people were desparately poor through his youth. Jews were not always looked upon positively by many, many people. They were tolerated, I suppose, but certainly not celebrated. Why isn’t this justification to give him a pass on his environment?
You are right to suggest Smith has caused harm and to question his value if we cannot place value on things he said. Placing value should go both ways, but LDS are only willing to assess value if it helps their cause.
——-
Now, why do I focus on these questions and issues? If FoF’s stated purpose is to provide a reasoned response to the criticisms leveled at his faith, then he needs to be able to address the questions I bring forth. These questions include but are not limited to: why isn’t exaltation based on works when if works are not completed one will not be exalted; why we should pay special attention to the prophets positive attributes but ignore the negative due to differences in time and environments; why can’t LDS offer specific criticisms of Joseph and/or other prophets; and why do LDS demand accuarcy concerning their faith but fail to care whether they get ours correct.
We have been accused of cognitive dissonance, but the failure to address these questions shows who is really apart from the ability to recognize their own position. Those who have left the LDS church have also been accused of not being very bright or educated, especially if they accept our faith. Those who defend LDS doctrine seem quick to hold over our heads an inability to discuss doctrine when ample evidence has been provided concerning doctrine, yet they run from very real problems within their own doctrine and history.
I take the posture I do to hopefully bring light to these discrpencies within LDS apologetics.
FOF,
“That is what I am referring to when I speak of judging other people. Of course we can learn from history and made general conclusions. But you were judging the heart of a person who lived 170 years ago. Please do not try to wiggle out of this as you consistently do.”
I judged the heart of Hitler while walking through one of his concentration camps, are you suggesting that a persons words and actions don’t speak to what is in their heart?
“And that is what I am arguing- none of you do anything but gulp down what is spoon fed you from dishonest sources with absolutely no further thought or investigation of your own. And you get what you deserve.”
Sorry but I have spent the past six years thinking, investigating, and researching. Most of it came from the LDS church’s own publications. No one has to look much further than that. Mormons have always been fantastic record keepers. I have done it on my own, nothing has been spoon fed to me. You are right about getting what I deserve though, I deserve a relationship with my Savior, I deserve the truth about Mormonism and it’s false prophets and I deserve freedom in Christ.
Joseph used abolition as one of his platforms while running for president, he had an agenda. Study it out. Go back up and read what grindael posted. Joseph Smith was all over the place with his teachings about Blacks. Like I said in an earlier post, he was inconsistent. Racism in Mormonism was started by Joseph Smith. He added it to Mormon scriptures. I’m sorry that you are stuck on abolition. Lynn’s article is really about the roots of racism in Mormonism. Please move on to the actual content of the article.
The quote by FOF from the original source reads thus:
First, this is a quote from 1843. By 1844 Smith had changed his views, and wanted to send the blacks to Mexico. But let’s analyze this quote, shall we? This “enlightened” “prophet”, only praises them for how well they can shine a shoe.It was already obvious by the many emancipated blacks in America that there were many who were the equal of whites, so Smith was not giving any insight that wasn’t already obvious. Smith then says that he would confine the blacks by STRICT LAWS to THEIR OWN SPECIES. This is NOT any kind of real “national equalization”. This is what Hitler wanted to do with the Jews. He then wanted to ship them out of the country like Jo Smith did, but then wound up burning them all in ovens. This is absolutely racist. When you force segregation, that is racism. It always has been, and always will be. I’m flabbergasted that FOF would say that this is not. Why does he? well this comment helps us to figure out why:
Defend Jo at all costs. FOF does not provide context. He simply says that Jo’s first statement isn’t racist. But if one actually analyzes the statement (as I have done) it is shown to be blatantly racist.
FoF has never shown in any way, how the multitude of quotes by his leaders have been used dishonestly or unintelligently by those here on this blog. He only CLAIMS that we do, with no PROOF that we do. We are only dishonest, because FOF says so. rolleyes. And if the root is bad, the tree is bad. There is nothing good in a system that says it is one thing, but really isn’t. That is why Jesus did this to the fig tree:
The second statement by Jo Smith that FOF quotes was written on February 7, 1844. Once again, it was superseded by Joseph’s later (private) comments that he wanted to ship all the blacks to Mexico, also – the second statement was a political document, written expressly to help Jo get elected. Like Mitt Romney in 2012, we find his private views to his donors were much different than his public statements, and the leaking of Romney’s private statements helped people to see that he would be a horrible President, just like Jo Smith would have been.
As for how we “spin, limit, and manipulate information,” FOF has not shown any of this or proved it by analyzing the statements that he is presented with. Instead, he propagates other statements that he says clarifies his interpretation, all the while ignoring what damns the statements that he provides. He does this over and over, ignoring what we post, and screaming loudly that no one can understand anything about Mormonism except him, the guy who can’t even quote the Book of Mormon accurately. The only one here promoting a “narrative” is FOF, who promotes his correlated “faithful history” to the exclusion of all evidence to the contrary. The pot once again calling the kettle black.
FoF said
You keep telling us we are wrong, you keep telling us how smart you are and how correct you are, So yes it’s seems according to you, we should trust you. So yes I do use my brain, my brain and research tells me you are a false prophet, a liar and have no clue.
My reading of what you write tells me you avoid the things you dont like and run from questions. If I was the only one ever to say that, then maybe you could claim I am making stuff up, but everyone tells you that, just in the last few posts by Grindael and MJP thay yet again pointed out things you avoid because you dont like.
We’re used to David Letterman’s top 10, well here’s a falcon top 5.
The top five myths Mormons hold regarding those who leave the LDS church.
1. Was offended by someone.
2. Desired to sin.
3. Never had a testimony to begin with.
4. Lazy……or stopped praying or reading the scriptures.
5. Studied @nti-Mormon literature.
The problem that TBMs have is that they can’t come to grips with the idea that former Mormons maybe got on to the real facts regarding Mormonism and their integrity wouldn’t allow them to continue believing in the ruse.
I’ve watched several different presentations by Lynn and in one she talks about teaching multiculturalism at BYU. This was one of many of the things that caused her Mormon “shelf” to collapse. The truth laid bare can be a painful thing.
Now TBMs like FOF will say, “Well if these people would have had a strong enough testimony, these things that they learned wouldn’t have shaken their faith in the church.”
What he doesn’t quite get is that they really aren’t interested in earning the LDS merit badge for continuing to believe in the LDS church when the evidence clearly shows (the church) is seriously flawed and not true.
Relegating those with black skin to second tier spiritual status and justifying it with the “war in heaven/curse of Cain” myth is knotted-headed thinking and shows these Mormon prophets for what they are; false!
BTW,
FOF at one point was quizzing our fomos about their BoM reading habits. He really thought he was on to something.
Fof F accuses Kate of judging Joseph Smith’s heart , and then turns right around and does that
to her .
Fof F accuses Lynn of smearing Joseph Smith , judging his motivation, but then turns right
around and does that to her .
Fof F resents some here who he says like to change the subject . Ye he turns right around and
attempts to this very thing with his silly comment about Mother Teresa . In his mind we are
dodging his questions bu trying to change the subject , but he does’nt do that , why he is merely
giving only what he calls , ” a broader view ” ! Silly him .
Hopefully no one will fall for his attempt to dodge the content of Lynn’s article . She notes that
the seeds of the Negro being denied the full privileges / blessings of Jesus’ gospel was
planted and begin to sprout under Smith ,( and then was watered and harvested and fed to
their flock by his successors as mature toxic spiritual food ) .
By ignoring what Mormon apostle Stapley recommended to Gov. Romney , Fof F was off and
running . Did’nt Stapley advise Romney to side with what Joesph Smith had taught about
the Blacks ? Just what was the Mormon leadership in Stapley’s time teaching about Blacks ?
As far as the information that Lynn posted goes , I for one learned nothing new . I had already
done investigation into this issue , and it commenced many years ago . So when Fof F judges
us here by saying that ,” NONE of you do anything but gulp down what is spoon fed you
from dishonest sources without absolutely no further thought or investigation of your own ” ,
That kind of inane statement is from a desperate critic of the true gospel , a Mormon apologist
who is running out of bullets .
There are many Mormons who are not satisfied with the way their leaders have tried to bury
this issue , and the latest attempt at appeasing rank and file members that was offered in Dec
was still avoiding doing the right thing : admitting that false doctrine was taught/condoned
for so many years by leadership . Until they are that articulate instead of sounding like slippery
politicians , we will keep being offered nothing but excuses .
Anyone else notice this sentance from FoF earlier?
“It doesn’t matter if Delbert Stapley took a sentence of Joseph Smith out of context to make a point.”
Is he suggesting it does not matter if his own leadership takes statements out of context? It matters when we do it, but not members of the 12?
I know his point is to suggest this guy’s use of Smith’s quote does not prove Smith a racist, but his use of the quote does suggest other members of his own faith, influential member of said faith at that, come/came to the same conclusion we do. But of course, none of that matters…
FoF said
Then FoF said
So FoF, I’m using my brain unlike you, all the so called dishonest sources you claim we gulp down are from your prophets, teachers and scriptures/teachings.
Give us one quote that you can honestly state and prove is from a dishonest source, you simply cannot, unless you claim your leaders are being dis-honest. So with that said try being objective, and a little due diligence before smearing people publicly.
Hey Kate,
I had you email at one time, but my computer Hot mail account was updated to outlook and I lost a bunch of peoples emails. Can you write me at [email protected]
I have a question for you that I dont want to ask here. Thanks.
rick,
I think the psychologists label what our buddy FOF is doing as “projection”.
“An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.”
“A way to blame others for your own negative thoughts by repressing them and then attributing them to someone else.”
FOF is pretty transparent. When he starts this riff it generally indicates he’s out of ammo. It happens all the time. He’s just throwing imaginary rocks right now.
FOF,
I am definitely not an expert in Mormon doctrine. I would like to learn. The problem is I have no idea how to go about it. If you want to know what I as a Christian am supposed to believe just look at the scripture.
I can’t do that with with LDS doctrine. With continuing revelation I would assume that what your prophets say is at least somewhat binding on you and if there was some ambiguity I would just look to their actions to provide contest . Is this not how I should do it?
When I looked at the combined words and actions of the early Mormon leaders it is pretty evident that they shared the general racism of their culture in the 19th century USA. They are not better or worse than the folks they lived around. That is not surprising to me.
The problem as I see it is the truth of your religion rests on the character these early leaders. The same way the truth of my religion rests on the character of Christ.
I don’t see how you get around it
peace
5thMM
Here’s the problem. Is the question we are asking really, “Is the Mormon god a racist?”. Perhaps a better question is, “Did those folks in the pre-existence who exercised their free agency against the Mormon god, deserve this punishment?” Here’s the punishment. They were “cursed” with black skin and denied the priesthood. Some of them became slaves to white skinned people so their bad choice resulted in a really severe punishment.
So now that the Mormon god has relented and will allow them to receive the priesthood and become gods, will he also cause them to have white skin?
So anyway, this is how you go about understanding Mormon doctrine. Just go into a free flow of consciousness and speculate endlessly. Then label it “continuous revelation”. Don’t try to nail things down in a concrete sequential manner. Go more abstract random in your thinking and you will get into the Mormon groove.