Posted on 01/06/2014 3:53:42 PM PST by Colofornian
In the recently released statement on lds.org on Race and the Priesthood, the modern Mormon Church disavows “that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else…” This unequivocal truth, that no race or ethnicity is superior to another, is something that Spain (1542), Quakers (1600s), Pennsylvania (1790), England (1807), Abraham Lincoln (1865), and Christians of any era who believe the Bible, know. According to the Bible, God shows no favoritism—never by skin color—and commands his people to do the same.
Lincoln, who often quoted the biblical God, was displeased with the Utah Territory for its stance as a slave territory (and for its polygamy). Finally in 1978, 113 years after Lincoln and 24 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, the Mormon Church gave black members of African ancestry (why not restrict Native Americans—they were the unrighteous dark-skinned Lamanites of the Book of Mormon?) equal access to the priesthood, ergo its Celestial kingdom, eternal life, and the potential for godhood.
As a professor at Brigham Young University (1999-2008), I taught, among other things—multiculturalism. In class, some of my generational LDS students proposed that those with black skin were blighted with something they called “the curse of Cain.” Alarmed by this belief, I began to investigate LDS scriptures on the topic and discovered scriptural support in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price corroborating students’ beliefs.
Because these scriptures still exist, are read, and revered, the lingering conundrum for the Mormon Church is this: How to explain the 20-some passages of LDS scripture that can be considered racist. So, this new attempt to state a non-biased position on race, which falls short of an apology, ignores the challenge of present-day scriptures.
As well intended as the latest words on the official church website are, they can affect no real change in policy or teachings because these scriptures remain. Why call these scriptures racist? The definition of racist is the belief that some races of people are better than others because of their race, their skin color. This is precisely what the LDS scriptures STILL teach. Here are few examples just from the Book of Mormon:
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…”
3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin becamewhite like unto the Nephites;”
3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they werewhite, even as Jesus.”
As these passages explain, the Lamanites (forerunners of the dark-skinned Native Americans descended from the Jews according to the Book of Mormon) were given a mark of dark skin as a curse for their transgression, not toward God, by the way, but toward their brethren, the “righteous” Nephites. Later when some Lamanites became righteous, the curse was removed and their skin became white.
This repulsion for the LDS racist scriptures I had discovered began to soften my heart toward the biblical God who, according to the Bible, is no respecter of persons and who shows no favoritism. When I read the Bible, its teachings were unmistakably clear because they were repeated over and over. One of these undeniable themes is that God is no respecter of persons and shows no favoritism, no bias.
What to do with the racist scriptures? If the LDS Church moves to remove them, then that calls into question all other things Joseph Smith wrote as scripture and said came from God. Can the Mormon Church say they’re an allegory that means something other than what they say literally? As of today, the church is still defending the four standard works on their official website as “utterly reliable” and “pure truth.”
Yeah the slowness started with Joey Smith..
about 1820 those 2 personages...Els you know the ones..well the one that wasn’t mute told Joey Smith not join a Christian church..like as in NONE NEVER NOT AT ALL FOREVER...
Well 10 years later Joey was still joining Christian churches..the Methodists, the Presbyterians...
see it does take a wee bit for the commandments of the Mormon lords to kick in...
Good pt.
But when it came to the choice of which "prophet" to toss under the bus, well, hey' 'twas easier to agree with the RLDS assessments & Emma Smith's assessment of Brigham Young than to topple the very Joseph Smith foundation of their church.
The church had already silently done that by tossing Brigham's "Adam is God" & "blood atonement" tabernacle teachings under the bus.
And, yeah, it's kind of difficult to make your university namesake a PR sacrificial lamb, but I think they finally realized, "what comes around, goes around" -- and, knowing, that Brigham Young threw John D. Lee under the Mountain Meadows Massacre justice bus stop -- protecting himself & other Mormons by making Lee the sacrificial wolf in that case...they figured, "Well, hey, it's Brigham's turn."
Do today’s Mormons claim that they’ve now reached perfection?
I’d respond that I consider all people(except, of course for Christ Himself) imperfect in any time, past present and future.
Joseph Smith never was a races.
1836
Elijah Abel Ordained an Elder
In March, Elijah Abel is given the priesthood and ordained to the office of Elder. This is reportedly done by Joseph Smith himself.
Joseph Smith Slavery Editorial
In the April issue of the Messenger and Advocate, Joseph Smith writes that the methods of the abolitionists are not helping the cause of the slaves.
Elijah Abel Listed in the Messenger and Advocate
In the June issue of the Messenger and Advocate, the elders in Kirtland Ohio are listed. Elijah Abel is listed as an Elder.
Elijah Abel Ordained a Seventy
In December Elijah is ordained a Seventy by Zebedee Coltrin. He also becomes a “duly licensed minister of the Gospel” for missionary work in Ohio. (Minutes of the Seventies Journal, December 20, 1836)
Nondiscriminatory Rules Published for Governing the Temple in Kirtland
The rules provided for “old or young, rich or poor, male or female, bond or free, black or white, believer or unbeliever…” (History of the Church 2: 368-69
Letter of the Prophet to John C. Bennett–On Bennett’s Correspondence Anent Slavery.
EDITOR’S OFFICE, NAUVOO, ILLINOIS, March 7, 1842
March 1842, Joseph Smith writes the following in a letter on the subject of slavery, “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
[History of the Church, 4:544]
Note: O tempora! O mores! is a Latin phrase meaning Alas for the times and the manners.
Once, as the Mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois he was told of a black man in Nauvoo named Anthony who had sold liquor on Sunday; which was a violation of the Nauvoo City Code. Mormon writer Mary Frost Adams tells us what happened:
“While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleaded that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child.” (Young Woman’s Journal, p.538)
(THE FOLLOWING IS NOT DOCUMENTED) The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery.
http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#boil
Why did Joseph Smith decided to be a candidate in the 1844 presidential election? It is hard to believe that he thought he could win the election, but he was not a frivolous candidate.
Joseph Smith said on February 8, 1844:
I would not have suffered my name to have been used by my friends on anywise as President of the United States, or candidade for that office, if I and my friend could have had the privilege of enjoying our religious and civil rights as American citizens…But this as a people we have been denied from the beginning. Persecution has rolled upon our heads from time to time…. because of our religion; and no portion of the government as yet stepped forward for our relief. And in view of these things, I feel it to be my right and privilege to obtain what influence and power I can, lawfully, in the United States, for the protection of injured innocence.
Clearly, Joseph Smith was trying to gain as much influence as possible to protect his people, even if he probably knew that he could not become president. In fact, he even speculated that he could be killed because of his campaign.
Joseph Smith‘s platform was contained in a pamphlet titled General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States.
Among other interesting ideas, he proposed the abolition of slavery by the year 1850. His solution to the problem was to
pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public land, and from the deduction of pay from members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire them to labor like other human beings
Was this solution economically impractical? According to Dr. Garr
…the way that ultimately the United States settled the slavery issue was through civil war – a conflict that cost more than fifteen billion dollars and more than 600,000 lives….a conflict that left the South in economic ruin and implanted bitterness and hatred in the hearts of millions…In retrospect, it would seem that Joseph Smith’s solution to the slavery was more sensible than Civil War.
Joseph Smith was killed on June 27, 1844 and obviously he never became president. The American people could not find a better solution to slavery and it went through a terrible Civil War.
I can’t avoid thinking how different could have been U.S. history if the American people has listened to Joseph Smith’s counsel.
http://giuseppemartinengo.com/166/why-did-joseph-smith-run-for-president-in-1844
I wonder what Joseph Smith would have thought about this? It sounds to me like the guys in charge in 1978 weren't "comfortable" with the revelation JS received from Almighty God and they really, really wanted God to change His mind. They spent "many hours" begging and pleading with God to repent of His earlier revealed "truth" and bring it up to date so that everyone would not be able to accuse the Mormons of racism anymore. So, God - the one who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, the God who is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through? (Numbers 23:19) - according to the LDS was persuaded to change His mind, to rescind His decrees and let Himself be talked into something He had previously (according to JS) declared was the truth. I agree, there is a huge pickle jar they find themselves in.
Do you mean to say he was never a racist? You can quote whatever you want about what the man may or may not have thought about slavery, but it sounds like he was the one who declared that God told him what he did about the black race - it's right there in your own scriptures, is it not? Did Mormonism allow black men to hold Temple Recommends? Did Mormonism allow black men to serve as bishops? Did not JS claim that black skin was a sign of God's curse upon a race?
I'm sure Colofornian isn't making it all up about what your religion used to hold and that its leaders waited until the late 1970's to think about changing those doctrines towards the black race. It's fine and good to be personally against slavery, but people can be against it and yet still be racists.
I wonder what Joseph Smith would have thought about this?
****
I think he is pleased if you saw my Post #25-26 not that it will make a difference some, but I think disinformation should be corrected.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3109040/posts?page=25#25
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3109040/posts?page=26#26
What disinformation is that? You think he would have been pleased to hear the leaders who came after him negated his own sworn revelation from God? Is Numbers 23:19 in your Bible? It says:
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
God doesn't change His mind. God doesn't lie. Unlike men, God doesn't make mistakes and have to be persuaded to go back on His word. If Mormons believe that God can be talked into changing His mind, then what truth is really absolute? What truths can we rely upon?
I can only speak for what is recorded in Church History
And the platform Joseph ran on.
The trouble started after Joseph Was Killed it seems this Zevedee Coltrin had something to do with the change.
Did this Zevedee Coltrin write the Book of Mormon? As the OP said:
As well intended as the latest words on the official church website are, they can affect no real change in policy or teachings because these scriptures remain. Why call these scriptures racist? The definition of racist is the belief that some races of people are better than others because of their race, their skin color. This is precisely what the LDS scriptures STILL teach. Here are few examples just from the Book of Mormon:
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…”
3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin becamewhite like unto the Nephites;”
3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they werewhite, even as Jesus.”
As these passages explain, the Lamanites (forerunners of the dark-skinned Native Americans descended from the Jews according to the Book of Mormon) were given a mark of dark skin as a curse for their transgression, not toward God, by the way, but toward their brethren, the “righteous” Nephites. Later when some Lamanites became righteous, the curse was removed and their skin became white.
Are you saying Joseph Smith DIDN'T write the BOM? Whatever you think Coltrin had to do with LDS doctrines about the black race, you cannot ignore what is STILL in your religion's scriptures.
ALL: Let me tell you the rest of the story here:
It's two such 1967 books, Berrett's -- and another one by Mormon author John L. Lund -- which gives us more info. (Lund's book was entitled: "The Church and the Negro," Paramount Publishers, Glendale, CA).
Lund wrote [citing caps as it appears in book]:
So the "poster boy" Restornu wants to elevate for the world to see was actually discriminated against by the Mormon church simply because of his skin color.
Lund concedes that Abel wasn't dropped for any moral reason.
Berrett also provides us with plenty more info:
* "This man [Elijah Abel] was one-eighth Negro and was light of color." (Berrett, p. 7)
* "...Elijah Abel was only part Negro...in a meeting, May 31, 1879, at the home of President A.O. Smoot, Provo, Utah, leaders of the Church reapproved that the Priesthood was not for the Negro, and that Elijah Abel was not to exercise any Priesthood rights." (Berrett, p. 8)
* "Brother Coltrin further said: Brother Abel was ordained a seventy because he had labored on the Temple, (it must have been in the 2nd Quorum) and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place." (Berrett, p. 10)
Did you all catch the above?
While Abel wasn't stripped of his priesthood until May 31, 1879 under Mormon "prophet" John Taylor's reign (Brigham Young had died in 1877), Zebedee Coltrin, the Mormon leader who washed and annointed Abel and later reported racist feelings about it, said...
Per Andrew Jensen's LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 577, Abel was ordained a Seventy on April 4, 1841 (he was ordained an Elder March 3, 1836). I've yet to find a date when his Quorum status was revoked by Joseph Smith...if Coltrin is correct--as cited by Berrett, then it would have been anytime the last three years of Smith's life.
Note: There's confusion within Mormon historians if Abel was restored to the Third Quorum of Seventy after 1879, because Andrew Jensen's LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 577 records Abel, at the age of 73, undertaking one more mission to Canada representing that Quorum.
Just as many Mormons continued getting married into plural unions in Mexico post 1890 after its Manifesto dispromoting polygamy, if Abel was restored to the Quorum -- this time the Third Quorum -- I suppose the Mormon church didn't mind it as long as Abel was beyond the U.S. Territories (Canada).
Questions, Restornu:
#1 Did you know the above facts -- about Abel FIRST being removed as a Seventy because of his race by Joseph Smith himself? (Certainly the Mormon Church knew this when it tried to subtly blame Brigham Young and those church leaders who followed him in their December 2013 statement; yet actually Brigham Young wasn't the "Prophet" in 1879 when Abel has his priesthood duties revoked; John Taylor was)
#2 Did you know what Zebedee Coltrin later reported about washing and annointed Elijah Abel?
#3 Did you know Abel's priesthood status was dropped at a Provo, Utah meeting on May 31, 1879?
#4 And finally, if you didn't know any of these facts, what Mormon source are you reading that gives you an intentionally incomplete and lopsided "faith-promoting" side of their history, and thereby has lost all credibility?
If the God of the Bible is "no respecter of persons," tell us, why...
... the Mormon church leadership -- accountable to John Taylor...perhaps Taylor was even there at the meeting...
...decided that their god on May 31, 1879 was to be a "respecter of persons," after all???
Do you (and other Lds FREEPERs reading this) condemn John Taylor & his leaders for removing Elijah Abel as a Mormon member of the Priesthood strictly due to him being 1/8th of black ancestry?
If not, why not?
And if not, isn't this -- by your collective continued silence
-- an issue where 2014 Mormons become culpable as well?
If we don't specifically condemn the specific corporate racism practiced by specific leaders, then aren't you sanctioning it when you become aware of it -- and don't condemn them for it?
Here you raised examples where you thought this promotes a "positive" side of Mormon history not practicing racism; yet per Zebedee Coltrin, and per two 1967 Mormon book authors, it actually depicts the exact reverse!!
The problem comes from the modern-day article of faith that anything with racist connotations is automatically false and evil.
What happens if they just go "OK, our scriptures are racist. So?"
If you want really racist stuff, take a look at the Hindu caste system, and its theological underpinnings.
They NEVER were; except to a small group of deceived folks who came up with a new strain of TARES.
Then, I suggest you read my post #33 to become familiar with Elijah Abel. Abel was born July 25, 1810 in Maryland. Was 1/8th of black ancestry. Was a faithful Mormon to the end of his life, dying on Christmas Day, 1884 of debility -- suffered from exposure while being a 73-->74 yo Lds missionary to Canada and then Ohio.
Per assistant historian Andrew Jensen, in his LDS Bigraphical Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 577: "He died in full faith of the" [Mormon version of the] Gospel."
Then read the little the Mormon Church had to say about Abel in their December 2013 statement:
"Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied."
IoW, Abel wanted access to a new Mormon temple in Utah. He applied for his endowment. And at a meeting at the home of...
...Abraham O. Smoot (Smoot's wikipedia entry shows him to be the second mayor of Salt Lake City and an early supporter of Brigham Young Academy, which came to be BYU...see Abraham O. Smoot)...
...on May 31, 1879...
...not only was Abel's temple endowment denied...
...but two 1967 Mormon authors claim Abel's priesthood duties were suspended...
(Note: It's possible that some of his priesthood duties were restored by 1883)
But, of course, don't expect full disclosure from the Mormon Church authorities when they tell its history!
Are ANY LDS Scriptures Still Deemed “Utterly Reliable” and “Pure Truth” by MORMONs?
They seem to twist, modify and ignore a LOT of them!
"I am a true believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ, I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young.
I do not care who hears it. It is my last word - it is so.
I believe he is leading the people astray, downward to destruction.
But I believe in the gospel that was taught in its purity by Joseph Smith, in former days.
I have my reasons for it.
"I studied to make this man's [Brigham Young] will my pleasure for thirty years.
See, now, what I have come to this day!
"I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner." (Lee enunciated this sentence with marked emphasis.)
Excerpted from --> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeexecution.html
I doubt is, as the one's I've conversed with here are ALWAYS ready for a NEW 'revelation' from GOD!
They'll be SO easy to steer in whatever direction Satan wants.
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.