Uh. Whatever happened to: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered [after being “commanded” that they not teach in Jesus’ name] and said, We ought to obey God rather than men?” (Acts 5:29)
So the will of slaveowners trumps the will of God that the Gospel go to slaves? Is that what you’re telling me with a straight face?
So what if the LDS favored freeing slaves back in its Mizzou days? What does it matter, REALLY, if you personally favored freeing slaves’ bodies but disfavored freeing their souls? Repent of such nonsense!!!
First, for you to leave out the important part of the context of that verses in the D&C is so telling, that I will from now on be forced to treat every one of your posts with as much respect and sincerity as the pattern which you are choosing to give them in. You do yourself and your cause a HUGE disservice by such blatant misinterpretation.
This is clearly about masters rights and the sanctity of life for the slaves, who's lives could be in jeopardy if they went against their masters wishes. The doctrines of the restoration include being judged on whatever degree of light and knowledge we have, not on wither or not all men are baptized, that's what Baptisms for the dead are for, and that's why there is a 1000 year millennium, to do all of Gods work for all his children, since the world began, for free and bonded.
For those just coming in for this exchange at this point: Sevenbak is chastising me for not citing ALL of D&C 134:12, which I will do here:
"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 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)
How do I plead to Sevenbak's chastisement? (Well, I do plead "guilty" to leaving out the phrase, "thereby jeopardizing the lives of men"--which to be fair, does seem to support Sevenbak's "sanctity of life" argument).
My point in addressing all of this is that it might be one thing to say "we won't interfere with bond-servants or their stations in life," but I took objection to the phrase, "neither preach the gospel to" along with the phrase at the end that the key danger beyond "jeopardizing the lives of men" (whether these saints meant slaves, slave-owners or both, they don't say as "dissatisfied slaves" could become a physical threat to slave-owners) was what I would call the illusion of "peace" of governments which tolerate slave ownership. [For more of what I mean here, just consult Abraham Lincoln's speech where he basically said that the Civil War blood was recompense/God's judgment to our nation for answering every drop of slave blood shed at the hand of an owner's whip].
Anyway, what was Sevenbak's reaction to my concern over withholding the gospel being preached to slaves? (Oh, don't worry, "...that's what Baptisms for the dead are for, and that's why there is a 1000 year millennium...")
So let me get this straight, SEVEN: You are "all for" the first part of D&C 134:12: "We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth..." but ya know, if our teens, being what they are--just teens--don't get 'round to most corners of the earth...'cause, after all, "...that's what Baptisms for the dead are for, and that's why there is a 1000 year millennium..."??? just hang loose, bro? REALLY?
And to quote Seven's already posted words, he'd probably would come right back and answer me, "Yeah, Sure, C! Ya see 'The doctrines of the restoration include being judged on whatever degree of light and knowledge we have...' and God isn't going to judge those folks we don't get 'round too seriously if they don't have much light & knowledge. Ya know, we were thinkin' it might even go a tad bit rougher if we showed up with all that light and knowledge..."
Bottom line: Seven still is trying to justify why slaves were supposedly unworthy of receiving the gospel in 1835 when D&C 134 was written. "We'll just get them on the back side of the graveyard," Seven reassures us. "We didn't want to bright up their life too much on this side of the graveyard lest the Lord hike up His level of judgment on them." "We got a 1,000-year hitch comin' up to do our gospel-sharing time vs. a 70-year hitch on this side of the veil."
Every argument, Seven, you used to justify why black slaves were supposedly "unworthy" of having the gospel preached to could be used to withhold the gospel against any people group...ANY...!!! Why bother "gospelizing" anybody or any people group if you're just going to fall back to those weasel ways.
But, we want to thank you. Because frankly, you highlight for us why the writer of Hebrews implies that "second-chance" doctrines (when no second-chance doctrines constitutes spiritual reality) wreak of the stench of death. [The Hebrews' writer wrote: "...It is appointed unto men die once, but THEN the judgment." 9:27] Only such putrid doctrines as baptizing corpses (who cares if they're "spiritual" corpses) could be used to try to justify the putrid racist doctrine of withholding the gospel from slave folks lest (to quote D&C 134:12) "such interference" constitutes behavior that is "unlawful and unjust." Well imagine that. Imagine that just suppose a group of 1835 saints did advocate such slaves were worthy of the gospel? (I mean, ya might have a civil war or something & would so many soldiers' lives be worth the expenditure?) [sarc--But isn't that just a "modern translation" of the D&C 134:12 portion that says preaching the gospel to slaves, baptizing slaves, and meddling with slaves is "dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude."]