Funny how so many here who are over 50 forget their own church history!
Much of that was recorded in “Birth of a Nation” by D. W. Griffith
I seem to remember that the Southern Baptists are a church FOUNDED to DEFEND white supremacy and Negro Slavery.
Funny how so many both over and under fifty are either
...ignorant of their full and unexpurgated history, or else willingly become dupes for those within their club who are constantly working to scrub and revise their history,
(even unto parsing the words of their own past “prophets” and presidents to mean other than their fully contextual original intent was ever intended to convey!)
It must be a form of hell on earth for current LDS members and historians - deciding which 19th century mormons to utterly elevate, and which to excoriate for denying or damaging the faith.
Cowdery?
Well - he was an original “witness” to at least one of the nine different accounts of how the bom was received (even today’s LDS folk can generally bring themselves to acknowledge two or three stories that were at various times purvey by “Huckster Joe” Smith and his willing accomplices) on the one hand
- but on the other hand he later testified, and admitted the whole of it was a lie, and that the two priesthoods were in fact NEVER handed over by John the Baptist and Paul (or Peter - whichever apparition it was that appeared that particular time...) and renounced Smith as the liar he was...
So we have to renouonce Cowdery then - sort of - except when we need him - unless we can make his recantations go away. Presto! they’re gone!
The estranged wife of a church Elder, contemporary of Smith? A woman who gave a matter-of-fact account of Smith’s blatant efforts to coax her into having an illicit sexual affair with him?
Well, she must have been lying.
Anybody who ever breathed a bad word of any sort about good ol’ Joe must be a discreditable liar of the lowest order .
Except she was not the only woman to ever recount such a story. There were several.
But I guess that “testimony of several witnesses” thing only applies when it supports whom (or what) you want it to support.
Several witnesses say that the bom was received in a certain form and via a certain method (in direct and absolute contradiction of OT and NT warnings against divination)
and therefore it is unassailable holy writ - more reliable than the bible (this despite more substantive revisions to the bom in 178 years than the bible has undergone in almost 1700 years) and should be considered to augment/supersede the bible on matters of doctrinal conflict?
But several witnesses independently corroborating factual accounts of Joseph Smith’s reprobate behaviour?
Worthless...ignore them - all of them. And while you are at it, ignore the man behind the curtain as well.
The problem is that the bom was neither divinely given, nor divinely received - therefore the stories will inevitably diverge in their important details, the character of those claiming to bear witness to it will unavoidably be erratic, inconsistent, and questionable, and the later interpretations will inalterably grow to be at wide variance in some respects with the original intent of the people involved, and their understandings.
You cannot un-ring a bell. You cannot erase from history the variance between Smith, Brigham Young and a score of other “illustrious leaders” having spoken ill of black people, denying them a theological path to be in heaven as full citizens, and elevating that as standardized and immutable teaching for the whole of the church for over 130 years.
Pun intended, it cannot be whitewashed.
The REAL BIBLE says that “there is neither man nor woman, Greek nor Scythian”...etc...in Christ Jesus.
So even while these racist founders were thundering their low beliefs, their unscholarly bastardizations of the bible and of Christian faith - REAL Christians were set about the Lord’s work - establishing the earliest vestiges of the underground railroad, the first schools which would accept and teach blacks as pupils, and generally upholding Pure religion (according to James...you know - visiting widows and orphans in their infirmity)
But never fear - G_d changed His mind about the blacks after all.
Maybe they always COULD get into the Christian heaven, but the mormon celestial heaven - well, just like the temples, they had to complete a few critical secret rooms before we could let the ‘servants of the servants’ in.
You just never know where folk like that might wander off to once they come in the front door...
(/sarc tag)
Maybe they will eventually decide to shelve all their objections to that whole ‘trinity’ thing. After all, the polygamy issue and the blacks issues were no more, no less immutable in church doctrine at one time.
But I’ll bet they will still want to believe they can become gods each over their own planets...all of that power...so alluring and seductive!
A.A.C.
in the kitchen, cooking it up. you know where you can go if you cannot stand the heat.
Funny how so many here who are over 50 forget their own church history!
Much of that was recorded in “Birth of a Nation” by D. W. Griffith
_____________________________________________
I didnt think there was any mention of mormons in that movie...
But just for you I watched it again..
Thank me...
And nope...there is none...
Unless you were taking a fictious rendering of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era in the South to be an excuse for the racism within the doctrines and practices of mormonism...
Joe Smith and Brigham Young were racists long before the Civil War...
They didnt need an excuse...they were just twisted thata way...came natural like...
Note to Resty: Not everything is about mormonism...
Never has been...never will be...