Skip to comments.Unparralled Outrage at Nauvoo (Mormon - OPEN)
Posted on 06/11/2010 9:44:43 AM PDT by Colofornian
Below we give the particulars of the most diabolical outrage that has ever been perpetrated in this free country. Had it been the act of an excited multitude, it would have appeared much more excusable; but it was the deliberate work of men who acted not from the impulse of a sudden emotion, nor amid the tumult of an intoxicated multitude. It was done in cold blood! and is there any thing further needed to exhibit the feindish and tyrannical disposition of Joe and his sattelites. To comment on this most wanton act would be an insult to our readers.
The following are the particulars which appeared in our extra of yesterday:
TUESDAY JUNE 11, 1844.
Mr. Sharp: -- I hasten to inform you of the UNPARALLELED OUTRAGE, perpetrated upon our rights and interests, by the ruthless, lawless, ruffian band of MORMON MOBOCRATS, at the dictum that of that UNPRINCIPLED wretch Joe Smith.
We were privately informed that the CITY COUNCIL, which had been in extra session, for two days past; had enacted an ordinance in relation to libels, providing that anything that had been published, or anything that might be published tending to disparage the character of the officers of the city should be regarded as LAWLESS. They also declared the "Nauvoo Expositor," a "nuisance," and directed the police of the city to proceed immediately to the office of the Expositor and DESTROY THE PRESS and also the MATERIALS, by THROWING them into the STREET!!!!
If any resistance were made, the officers were directed to demolish the building and property, of all who were concerned in publishing said paper; and also take all into custody, who might refuse to obey the authorities of the City.
Accordingly, a company consisting of some 200 men, armed and equipped, with Muskets, Swords, Pistols, Bowie Knives, Sledge-Hammers, &c, assisted by a crowd of several hundred minions, who volunteered their services on the occasion, marching to the building, and breaking open the doors with a Sledge Hammer, commenced the work of destruction and desperation.
They tumbled the press and materials into the street, and set fire to them, and demolished the machinery with sledge hammer, and injured the building very materially. We made no resistance; but looked on and felt revenge, but leave it for the public to avenge this climax of insult and injury.
C. A. FOSTER.
We received the above communication by the hands of Charles A. Foster, about 1/2 past 11 o'clock to-day. We have only to state, that this is sufficient! War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!! -- Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS!! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!
Great site, BM. Thanks for the link.
Seriously, guys this has some good links.
The destruction of the printing press in Independence was a direct attack on the Mormons opposition to slavery. In fact, it is listed as the first of many attacks by mobs on anti slavery newspapers in that time period, not just Mormons.
I suggest a reading here, especially the chart showing the specific and multiple incidences of said destruction.
In no uncertain terms, Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith invoked Biblical scripture as a major defense for Mormonism’s pro-slavery views:
“After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind-wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the [B]ible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this nature, as the fact is incontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy [B]ible . . . .”
(Joseph Smith, “Messenger and Advocate,” Vol. 2, No. 7, 9 April 1836, p. 20, in “History of the Church, Vol. 2, pp. 436-38)
That same year, Smith’s secretary, Warren Parrish, made it clear that the Mormons were not abolitionists, declaring that the abolitionist movement was contrary to the doctrine of Christ:
“Not long since a gentleman of the Presbyterian faith came to this town (Kirtland) and proposed to lecture upon the abolition question. Knowing that there was a large branch of the church of Latter Day Saints in this place, who, as a people, are liberal in our sentiments; he no doubt anticipated great success in establishing his doctrine among us.
“But in this he was mistaken. The doctrine of Christ and the systems of men are at issue and consequently will not harmonize together.”
(Warren Parrish, “Messenger and Advocate,” Vol. 2, No. 7)
Smith concurred with Parrish, insisting that Mormons lent a deaf ear to calls for the abolishment of slavery because it violated the Gospel of God as found in the Bible and, moreover, that the end of slavery would endanger the safety and morals of society:
DEAR SIR: This place [Kirtland] having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called ABOLITIONISTS, and his presence having created an interest in that subject, if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the Southern public, . . . you are at liberty to give them publicity . . . .
“I FEAR that the sound might go out, that ‘an Abolitionist’ had held forth several times to this community, . . . . all, except a very few, attended to their own vocations, and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls.
“I am aware that many, who PROFESS to preach the Gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the South, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship, because they will not renounce the principle of slavery, and raise their voice against every thing of the kind.
“This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflections of all men, and more especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair states of the South, and let loose upon the world a community of people, who might, peradventure, OVERRUN OUR COUNTRY, AND VIOLATE THE MOST SACRED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN SOCIETY, CHASTITY AND VIRTUE. . . .
“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. How any community can ever be excited with the CHATTER of such persons, boys and others, who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me; and when I see persons in the free states, signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an army of influence, and a DECLARATION OF HOSTILITIES, against the people of the South. What course can sooner divide our union?
“After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ. . . . [T]he first mention we have of SLAVERY is found in the Holy Bible . . . .
“And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the DECREE OF JEHOVAH, to the shame and confusion of all who HAVE CRIED OUT against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in SERVITUDE. . . . I can say, the CURSE IS NOT YET TAKEN OFF FROM THE SONS OF CANAAN, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who INTERFERE THE LEAST WITH THE PURPOSES OF GOD in this matter, will come under the LEAST CONDEMNATION BEFORE HIM; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the DECREES OF THE LORD, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.
Basing his embrace of slavery on the Bible, the Bible-quoting Joseph Smith further argued that Christianity’s Holy Writ sanction of slavery was “pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
“’And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant.’ (Genesis 9:25-27)
“Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictate by his counsel.”
(Joseph Smith, “Messenger and Advocate,” Vol. II, No. 7, pg. 290, April 1836, Kirtland, Ohio, in “History of the Church,” Vol. 2, pp. 436-40)
Smith again affirmed that Mormons were not anti-slavery abolitionists when he emphatically and unambiguously stated:
“Are the Mormons abolitionists? No . . . we do not believe in setting the Negroes free.”
(”Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” [Salt Lake City, Utah;: Deseret Book, reprint, 1977], p. 120)
The official Mormon newspaper of Joseph Smith’s day also denounced the idea of emancipation of the slaves, warning that “sons-of-Canaan” Blacks would destroy the White way of life:
Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty . . . . Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the BLACKS of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streetsour prisons filled with convicts, and the HANG-MAN WEARIED with executing the functions of his office!
“This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who has ever travelled in the slave states, or we must open our houses unfold our arms, and bid these DEGRADED AND DEGRADING sons of Canaan, a hear[t]y welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably DEGRADING, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt. . . .
“[T]he project of EMANSIPATION IS DESTRUCTIVE TO OUR GOVERNMENT, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish! And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a NEGRO!”
(”Messenger and Advocate,” Vol. 2, pp. 299-301)
Mormon president Brigham Young taught from the pulpit that slavery was divinely ordained, citing the case of the Bible character Ham:
Ham will continue to be servant of servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. WILL THE PRESENT STRUGGLE FREE THE SLAVE? NO; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands. . . . Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for HAM MUST BE THE SERVANT OF SERVANTS UNTIL THE CURSE IS REMOVED.
“Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? YOU CANNOT. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. THEY CANNOT DO THAT, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands.
(Brigham Young, “Millennial Star,” Vol. 25, p. 787; also in “Journal of Discourses,” Vol. 10, p. 250)
Young further railed against abolitionists as being darkly inspired:
The rank, rabid ABOLITIONISTS, whom I call BLACK-HEARTED Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire.
(Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses,” Vol. 10, p.110)
John Taylor, who became the Mormon Church’s third president, denounced abolitionist Horace Greeley, in the wake of Greeley’s visit to the Utah territory:
” . . . I WOULD NOT TALK TO HIM: I FELT MYSELF SUPERIOR TO SUCH A MEAN CONTEMPTIBLE CUR. I knew he was not after truth, but falsehood. This Greeley is one of their popular characters in the East, and one that supports the stealing of [anti-Black racial slur that rhyomes with “triggers”] and the underground railroad. . . . [H]e is one of the prominent newspaper editors in the Eastern country, and he is a POOR, MISERABLE CURSE.
(John Taylor, “Journal of Discourses,” Vol. 5, p. 119)
Thank you for showing that it was not religious persecution but that similar pro-slavery attacks were made by mobs against other newspapers. Difference from the Expositor -
1. The destruction was at the direction of the city gov't, specifically the mayor - smith, who also directed the military to take part in the destruction.
2. The Expositor was exposing matters of a religious origin - namely the illegal polygamy of Smith and his inner circle. The reference examines abolitionist (including Independence) papers and articles.
So it continues to be illegitimate to claim that smith had the right to destroy the Expositor BECAUSE another mormon 'press' had been destroyed. The law of the land only allowed for the cessation of printing UNTIL the matter was adjudicated in a court of law. Smith showed that he was a violent man through this act - because he was being exposed for what he was - a false prophet and polygamist/adulterer.
Classic mormon position waffling - what ever works for the situation.
96 And again, I say unto you, it is contrary to my commandment and my will that my servant Sidney Gilbert should sell my storehouse, which I have appointed unto my people, into the hands of mine enemies.
Well rip, guess your prophets didn’t get the message, as documented by the preaching and teaching documented by TN. Your “scriptures” - Articles of faith #12 also claim to follow the laws of the land - except for the times smith believed that they did not require him to follow them.
Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.
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.'
Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, 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."
Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.
August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said: "The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent. I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after." "He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage." "That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...." 1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said, "The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder." We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood. According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.
August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:
"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent. I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."
"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."
1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,
"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."
We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.
According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.
Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball, in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:
"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."
(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).
When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:
"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:
"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."
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)
Rip's already been far off-base on a few of his contentions this thread...so if you want the true scoop on this "lemon" of a religion, don't listen, ALL, to the used car salesman. Here's the true scoop:
Joseph Smiths position on slavery, 1836-1843:
April, 1836: If those who run through the free states, exciting their indignation against our brothers of the South, feel so much sympathy and kindness towards the blacks, were to go to the southern states, where the alleged evil exists, and warn those who are guilty of these enormous crimes, to repent and turn from their wickedness, or would purchase the slaves and then set them at liberty, we should have no objections to this provided they would place them upon some other continent than ours What benefit can the slave derive from the long harangues and discussions held in the north? Certainly the people of the north have no legal right to interfere with the property of the south, neither have they a right to say they shall, or shall not, hold slaves (Joseph Smith, Messenger & Advocate, p. 299) .
April, 1836: If we dislike slavery we are free from it and are in no danger of being afflicted with it. If they are satisfied with it, it is their right as governments Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty, is past our comprehension. Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the blacks of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life-endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets-our prisons filled with convicts, and the hang-man wearied with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who have ever travelled [traveled] in the slave states, or we must open our houses, unfold our arms, and bid these degraded and degrading sons of Canaan, a hearty welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! (Smith, Messenger & Advocate, p. 300)
April, 1836: we are not accountable for their conduct-they have long since fled to be here no more: and why disgrace ourselves by contending about that that we cannot better by contention, at the same time involving ourselves in everlasting ruin? In this matter we consider we have spoken in behalf of the slave, as well as the slave holder. It has not been a thing of hasty conclusion; but deliberately and carefully examined, and we are sensible, if there are any who believe the gospel as we, and differ from us in point of national government, and would take the pains to inform themselves, not only by searching the holy scriptures, but by visiting the south, they would soon commend us for the course we have now taken. (Smith, Messenger & Advocate, p. 301)
May 6 or 7, 1838: "Are the Mormons abolitionists?" No...we do not believe in setting the negroes free." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 120, published 1938)
Jan. 2, 1843 : Later in the same book, pp. 269-270 under the sub-heading "Status of the Negro": "Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically." (p. 269) p. 270: "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."
Smith not only supported slavery, but the above quotes show the Lds founder and precious "prophet" was racist to the core.
In 1835, Smith even wrote it into Lds "scripture" that the gospel is to be withheld from slaves (D&C 134:12) -- unless, of course, the master approves. (No, not the Master of the Universe, Jesus Christ...but the "mastuh" of slaves...that's who's the "lord" of your gospel, Ripliancum -- because he's the one who dictated to Smith who would -- and more importantly, who wouldn't hear the Mormon gospel).
[More on that next post]
Joseph Smith on reaching out to slaves -- Aug. 17, 1835: A previous Pro-Mormon FREEPER thread mentioned the outlandish claim that Joseph Smith ran on an abolitionist platformin 1844 when he began his campaigning for the U.S. Presidency, claiming that some surmise that his stance on the issue was in part to blame for his murder.
Just like Ripliancum has tried a couple of ways to slice & dice history for revisionist purposes on this thread, that authored also tried claiming that the mobs partial motivation for going after Smith in that gun battle (Smith had a gun smuggled into his cell) was his abolitionist stance. The fact is, Smith, as mayor, had ordered the destruction of a printing press in town. If Smith could continue to beat all opposition of his into the ground by simply silencing their voice via such destruction, would their voice as citizens be similarly silenced?
As for abolition, the last post pretty much showed Smiths racist underpinnings from 1836-1843. But none of those things made it into Mormon scripture. And Ripliancum cites the D&C. So what else did Smith write on this subject that made it into Mormon scripture?
Well, its mid-1835. Smith is churning out new Scripture. Smith is taking aim at new converts. But in that time, did he believe the Mormon gospel to be aimed at slaves? (No, not unless express permission was granted by their owners).
Could you imagine a verse still applicable todayone similar to the Mormon scripture of Doctrine & Covenants 134:12which would tell you in effect that yes, the gospel was for women who are sexually trafficked--but only if their Pimp-owner says "Yes?".
I mean, imagine if you will, for a moment, that you are the God of the universe; God of every planet; God of the earth; Creator of every person. Imagine for a moment you are speaking forth universal eternal truth. And then imagine that someone claims you (as God) made the following Scriptural statement:
We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
D&C 134:12 is LDS Doctrine that has never been removed or rescinded!!! This passages makes it quite clear in contrast to the apostle Paul who vied for the religious freedom of Onesimus while treating him as a full Christian brother and encouraged Philemon to do the same--somehow, LDS think that "religious freedom" applies to everyone except slaves!
D&C 134:12, written in 1835 pro-slavery America, made it quite clear that instead of the Mormons having a universal god who issued eternal truth applicable to all cultures, he is instead an American-sounding god who speaks only in King James English & was beholden to the American slavery industry.
D&C 134:12 "settles" the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture.
And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ya ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business property, or to say it as precisely as LDS "scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life...
(Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves or trafficking victims now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?)
Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:
Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)
Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)
Game, set, match to Colo.
And thank you for the resources, I copied it off.
The previous two posts showed Joseph Smith's positions on slavery and slaves. This one zeroes in on Brigham Young's position circa 1850 through 1863. (I wanna mention that I pulled some of these from a previous FREEPER post by Tennessee Nana):
Era of Brigham Young as Mormon prophet: Circa 1850: Slaves coming into the Territory with their masters of their own free will, continue to be in all respects slaves, but cruelty and withholding proper food, raiment, etc., makes the ownership void. Every master or mistress who has carnal relations with his or her Negro slaves forfeits his or her right to the slaves, who thereby becomes the property of the commonwealth. Every individual man or woman who has carnal relations with a Negro or a negress who is sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding three years, and to a fine from 500 to 1000 dollars. (A Journey To Great Salt Lake City 1:469-70)
Jan 23,1852: Brigham Young instructs Utah Legislature to legalize slavery because we must believe in slavery.
Feb 5,1852: Brigham Young announces policy of denying priesthood to all those black African ancestry, even if there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before because negroes are the children of old Cain....any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the priesthood. Contrary to Joseph Smiths example in authorizing the ordination of Elijah Abel, this is LDS policy for the next 126 years.
Jan 3,1854: Brigham Young invites Elijah Ablel, free black and ordained Seventy, to party with 98 other men in Social Hall. Some of these parties are male-only dances.
Aug 20,1859: We consider it of divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants. (Brigham Young)
Sep 7,1859 Salt Lake City clerk records sale of 26-yo negro boy for $800 to William H. Hooper. Until federal law ends slavery in U.S. Territories in 1862, some African-American slaves are paid as tithing, bought, sold and otherwise treated as chattel in Utah.
Oct. 9, 1859: You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, 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 servants of servants; and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. (LDS Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290-291)
March 8, 1863: The rank, rabid ABOLITIONISTS, whom I call BLACK-HEARTED Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Do you know this, Democrats? They have kindled the fire that is raging now from the north to the south, and from south to the north. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.109)
Oct. 6, 1863: Ham will continue to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle free the slave? [context is Young is discussing the Civil War] No
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 250)
It will be interesting to see what shows up in FR today!
I hate it when that happens..
Ouch, those will leave a mark.
Perhaps we might have someone show up & try to defend that Young isn't a false prophet. I mean I quoted him from 1863 in my last post, where Young is waxing strong about the Civil War...and even a year away from its finish, Young prophesies: "Will the present struggle free the slave? No " (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 250)
[I guess Young just couldn't see an emancipation proclamation coming, being a "prophet" and all that "NEVER" leads "the only true church on the face of the earth" (D&C 1:30) astray. Mormons decided to reward this kind of "vision" by naming their most prominent university after him!]
These are always tough questions for Mormon apologists, Els:
"Do we defend Young's false prophecies?"
"Do we defend Young's racism?"
"Do we defend Smith's racism?"
"Do we defend a criminal mayoral despot like Smith and thereby stand against the side of free expression in a Free Republic?"
"How can we 'reconstruct' history in a more favorable 'PR' light?"
"Or do we just stay silent...and let the crickets represent us like usual?"
Oh NOW you did it
When Mormon ‘Prophet’ and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:
“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.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)
Gosh I do hope some wag over in the mormnon familysearch “married” Briggy Young to lots of black women...
Just to show how this mormon doctrine was changed by the mormon god...
and that mormons are no longer racist...
You foul ANTIs BUG the hell out of us TBM’s!!
—MormonDude(I really try to answer your questions; don’t I?)
Did I do that?
“Was Joseph Smith committing criminal acts by ordering the destruction of the Expositor?” The answer you’ll get will show where their absolutes lie — and it won’t be with Freedom of the Press. “
Let’s assume that you are right (but of course you certainly are not) . . . but let’s assume you are right about the printing press . . . So does this mean that you are in agreement with the mob murdering Joseph Smith and his brother in cold blood without a trial? Surely not.
Sandy, let's assume you are right about a vigilante mob going way beyond legal boundaries who was present @ the jailhouse shooting of the Smith brothers.
So does this mean...
(a) that you endorse inmates being slipped multiple firearms, and thereby justify the jailcell actions of the Smith brothers before the shooting ever began?
(b) And that such inmates in possession of such firearms assume no inherent risks of being shot at for that illegal action?
(c) And do you conclude, that under no circumstances are inmates who are in possession of said weaponry, should not be fired upon by anybody who not's been properly/duly authorized by law enforcement or criminal justice officials?
IOW, Sandy, yes, history is clear that this mob seemingly fired upon the inmates first. But an early gun shot that wounded Hyrum Smith in the back cannot be explained as having come from external shooters. And, are you 100% certain that whatever members of the mob shot first where not told by jail guards that the Smiths had weapons smuggled into them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.