Blacks and the LDS Priesthood

[Xmoe]

I’ve known manic-depressives. Fell in love with one once. I’ve also known many a con man and con-woman.

Not entirely off the subject, you didn’t answer my question about your claim of being an attorney, TexanKnight. See TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 38.122 : Texas Statutes - Section 38.122: FALSELY HOLDING ONESELF OUT AS A LAWYER

 

[TexanKnight]

I’ve known manic-depressives. Fell in love with one once. I’ve also known many a con man and con-woman.

Not entirely off the subject, you didn’t answer my question about your claim of being an attorney, TexanKnight. See TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 38.122 : Texas Statutes - Section 38.122: FALSELY HOLDING ONESELF OUT AS A LAWYER

In my career, I have known more than one con man. They are the type of people who might charge a price for a service they know they cannot do…like treasure seeking.

Are you accusing me of a crime?

 

[Xmoe]

In my career, I have known more than one con man. They are the type of people who might charge a price for a service they know they cannot do…like treasure seeking.

Are you accusing me of a crime?

No. I’m asking you if you are really a lawyer. And it’s the third time that I’ve asked, and you have not answered.

Refresh my memory … haven’t you accused mormons here of “dodging” and other intimations of dishonesty when they don’t answer your questions to your satisfaction the second time?

TexanKnight, please answer my question: when you call yourself a “managing attorney” on your profile, are you actually a bar licensed attorney in the state of Texas?

If so, then why not answer the simple question?

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight, your profile states that you’re an attorney. Is that right?

Do you really need someone else to explain why it’s irrelevant whether “the Mormons” had authority over Texas land?

you made aq claim that is simply wrong. No one had the authority to give land away at that time except Mexico. If you knew Texas history, you would know that.

Texas was not a state yet.

I am aware of that. Texas won its independance and became a Republic in 1836 and a state in 1845. Before 1836, only Mexico could offer land. Between 1836 and 1845, only Texas could Your point is simply wrong.

Texas was disputed land between the USA, Mexico, and the self-proclaimed Texas entity.

Wrong. USA never claimed Texas until after 1845. And Texas never disputed the land belonged to Mexico. They declared independance from Mexico and after Texas won, THEN it was Texas land. Mexico was never happy it lost, and, after Texas became a State, Mexico tried to object and, in 1846, we had the Mexican-American War.

Neither JS nor any other Mormon actually offered the land to anyone.

I know.

JS suggested that the USA offer the land to emancipated slaves.

Then he was not very bright. Until 1845, USA could not have offerred squat to anyone regarding Texas. Even after 1845, the USA could not have done so in violation of the 14th.

Is that more clear to you?

Is it more clear to YOU?

 

[TexanKnight]

No. I’m asking you if you are really a lawyer. And it’s the third time that I’ve asked, and you have not answered.

Refresh my memory … haven’t you accused mormons here of “dodging” and other intimations of dishonesty when they don’t answer your questions to your satisfaction the second time?

TexanKnight, please answer my question: when you call yourself a “managing attorney” on your profile, are you actually a bar licensed attorney in the state of Texas?

If so, then why not answer the simple question?

I have not answered because your question offends me. I see no need for you to be offensive. My profile speaks for itself. Nor is it relevant to the issues on this board.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’ve known manic-depressives. Fell in love with one once. I’ve also known many a con man and con-woman.

Not entirely off the subject, you didn’t answer my question about your claim of being an attorney, TexanKnight. See TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 38.122 : Texas Statutes - Section 38.122: FALSELY HOLDING ONESELF OUT AS A LAWYER

It is entirely off the thread topic, TK’s life is not the subject here no matter how much you want to turn the discussion on him.

 

[SteveVH]

So Paul, when specifically discussing how Christian slaves and masters should treat each other, is avoiding the massive elephant in the room and is instead talking in general terms about service? Rebecca, you must see that this interpretation is streaching the scriptures out of context. However, I respect that you had the courage to answer the questions.

There are only a couple of ways to honestly take the passages I have given. Either, Paul was an apostle speaking for the Lord or he was giving terrible counsel not sanctioned by God which was subsequently cannonized as part of the Bible. Joseph Smith rightly explains the matter as indeed it must be explained, “Were the Apostles men of God, and did they preach the Gospel? I have no doubt that those who believe the Bible, will admit that they were: and that they also knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote to the churches, which they were instrumental in building up.” From earlier in the discourse, “…this people were led and governed by revelation, and if such a law was wrong, God only is to be blamed…” (History of the Church Vol II p.439)

Are you trying to say that the Bible defends slavery and therefore Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were right to hold their racist beliefs? I’m having a hard time discerning the point of your argument. Rebecca has very accurately given the answer to the meaning of St. Pauls words. His purpose was not to change the social structure of his culture. It was, as Rebecca has repeatedly said, to teach people how to live a Christian life, regardless of their social status. What is so difficult to understand?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Honestly, I think Mormons could make the same argument for BY and the other Mormon leaders that TK has posted. That is, they were commenting within their culture.

The first major problem I see with their teachings, revolve around the separation made of a whole group of people from the most important, and needful (according to Mormon teaching), rites. Or as Mormons would call them, ordinances. There is nothing in St. Paul’s writings that would support denying a baptized member of Christ’s Church a required act, based on their ancestral heritage alone. St. Paul was in opposition towards the very idea, and taught against it more than once.

The second major problem is Mormon exegesis of scripture in order to prop up these teachings. Beginning with the “mark of Cain”, and it just gets worse from there.

There is no way there can be an argument made that St. Paul was teaching a whole class of people should be denied anything that God has to give them, just because they were part of a lower class of Roman society.

 

[NeuroTypical]

1. Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave owner “free your slaves” counsel them to treat slaves fairly? Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave, “leave” counsel them to serve their master as they would Christ?

Cool. That works for me.

So, God is unchanging and eternal, but the circumstances and cultures in which His children find themselves, change often and are temporary, thus His counsel to us change over time.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Cool. That works for me.

So, God is unchanging and eternal, but the circumstances and cultures in which His children find themselves, change often and are temporary, thus His counsel to us change over time.

Makes perfect sense.

That is not what I said, or implied.

God does not change. Truth is not relevant to circumstance.

I can say, “Serve and love others as you would Christ.” Which is an unchanging Truth. Some people don’t get it, and are thinking, “But this happened, and my life is hard, and, and, and…etc.” Some people (myself included) need specific directions. “Life is hard, and that did happen. Serve and love others as you would Christ.”

Mormons seem to think this means, “If that didn’t happen, and life wasn’t hard, then it’s really very vague whether or not I should love others as I would Christ. What about this circumstance, or that circumstance. It’s just so unclear!”

Eternal Truth doesn’t change according to your circumstances.

 

[TexanKnight]

Cool. That works for me.

So, God is unchanging and eternal, but the circumstances and cultures in which His children find themselves, change often and are temporary, thus His counsel to us change over time.

Makes perfect sense.

The fact that God is unchanging and eternal is the fact that destroys Mormonism’s doctrine. Your god was once a sinful man who changed into a god. That is absolutelyagainst the Bible.

 

[Porknpie]

That is not what I said, or implied.

Eternal Truth doesn’t change according to your circumstances.

:clapping:

 

[Janderich]

Are you trying to say that the Bible defends slavery and therefore Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were right to hold their racist beliefs?

I’m having a hard time discerning the point of your argument. Rebecca has very accurately given the answer to the meaning of St. Pauls words. His purpose was not to change the social structure of his culture. It was, as Rebecca has repeatedly said, to teach people how to live a Christian life, regardless of their social status. What is so difficult to understand?

I believe the difficulty lies in understanding Joseph in relation to Paul. Was Paul a racist? Parish the thought. Was Joseph Smith a racist? Of course not. They thought the same in this matter. What then is at the heart of the issue.

1. Paul clearly does not tell slaves to rebel or masters to release their slaves.
2. Paul was speaking what the Lord would have him say.
3. The Lord at that time and at that moment accepted that slaves should serve their masters and masters should treat slaves with dignity.

I cannot entertain any other notion, Paul was following the will of the Lord. If this is the case then why is it so? Perhaps, the Lord can only work with people to the level of their capacity. This appears consistent throughout scripture. For instance, the Law of Moses was given because the people could not live the higher law. Did the Lord want the Israelites at that time to live the Law of Moses? No! He wanted more but they were not willing to live it. Perhaps it is the same way with us. No doubt there are abhorrent practices that in 150 years from now will seem barbaric. Maybe it will be war, maybe the slaughter of innocent animals for food we don’t need. I might take as a further example the issue with abject poverty and extreme riches found in the world and even among Christians. Would the Lord have it be this way? No! But as a people we are unwilling/unable to live a higher law. So the Lord asks us to give but he can only ask us to do what we will.

However, the Lord never stops trying to lead his people to a higher plane. In order to do this there must be continuing revelation. The Lord has always governed his church this way and will continue to do so. He did so in Paul’s day and he does today. As people learn, the Lord gives additional truth. If a new command is revealed are prophets and apostles to be blamed for doing the Lord’s will? No.

It is the same with Priesthood. Priesthood must be given by the Lord and He gives line upon line, precept upon precept. Providing more truths, commandments, and responsibility as the people are willing to accept it. Do I know the mind of the Lord or his prophets on all matters? No. But the truth stares me in the face and the conclusion is inescapable.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I believe the difficulty lies in understanding Joseph in relation to Paul. Was Paul a racist? Parish the thought.

Race had nothing to do with slavery in Paul’s time and everything to do with race in JS and BY’s time.

It is the same with Priesthood. Priesthood must be given by the Lord and He gives line upon line, precept upon precept. Providing more truths, commandments, and responsibility as the people are willing to accept it. .

So black people were unwilling to accept commandments and responsibility, I see.

 

[TexanKnight]

Janderich, now that people have gone out of their way to answer your questions, NOW, maybe you can address the horrible quotes of your leaders (I can;t bring myself to call them prophets because no man who is a true prophet of God would talk about a race of people like that)

 

[Lochias]

Janderich, now that people have gone out of their way to answer your questions, NOW, maybe you can address the horrible quotes of your leaders (I can;t bring myself to call them prophets because no man who is a true prophet of God would talk about a race of people like that)

Agreed. Let’s hear it.

 

[SteveVH]

Was Joseph Smith a racist? Of course not.

I’ll make this easy. Lets review once again the words of Joseph Smith, himself.

"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… the 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 [slavery] 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.”

• Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 2, p. 438;

“Thirteenth – ‘Are the Mormons abolitionists?’ No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.”

• Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v.3, p. 29;

Joseph Smith was a racist of the worst kind. He actually believed it to be the will of God that blacks were to be slaves.

 

[twopekinguys]

Cool. That works for me.

So, God is unchanging and eternal, but the circumstances and cultures in which His children find themselves, change often and are temporary, thus His counsel to us change over time.

Makes perfect sense.

Is that why he “counseled” the lds in 1978 to change their priesthood ban? Because no other team wanted to play BYU because of it’s racist policies?

Sorry, God does not bend to social pressure.

Is that why the polygamy “revelation” took 5 years to become public? Emma ( I think that’s her name), finds out JS is “marrying” all over the place, and poof, God changes his mind and makes it public?

Sorry, God does not bend to social or any other type of human pressure.

 

[SteveVH]

Cool. That works for me.

So, God is unchanging and eternal, but the circumstances and cultures in which His children find themselves, change often and are temporary, thus His counsel to us change over time.

Makes perfect sense.

There is also the fact that, in addition to slaves in the Roman empire who were victims of being conquered, it was not uncommon for a wealthier Jewish household to bring in those less fortunate to feed and house in return for work. This class of people were considered “slaves” as well, though they were really indentured servants. The point is it was not based upon race at all, nor on our modern idea of slavery. The entire Mormon idea concnering the status of blacks had to do only with skin color. That is called racism.

 

[severus68]

There is also the fact that, in addition to slaves in the Roman empire who were victims of being conquered, it was not uncommon for a wealthier Jewish household to bring in those less fortunate to feed and house in return for work. This class of people were considered “slaves” as well, though they were really indentured servants. The point is it was not based upon race at all, nor on our modern idea of slavery. The entire Mormon idea concnering the status of blacks had to do only with skin color. That is called racism.

Your facts are correct but it has to be made clear that slavery of any kind should not be acceptable to Christians.