LDS & Catholic Comparison

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
“Astray” means down a path of error that is not in accordance with what God either wills or allows for His chosen people. The Mormons are still here. They haven’t “gone astray” although you don’t think they ever weren’t “astray.”

So the Mormons were not astray when they believed that God himself taught:

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. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed 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 (Journal of Discourses, 7:290)

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 (ibid., 10:110)

Looks quite astray to me. But if you Mormons still believe that the above was a good teaching in accordance with God’s will, then there’s not much we can do for you.

 

[ParkerD]

So the Mormons were not astray when they believed that God himself taught:

Looks quite astray to me. But if you Mormons still believe that the above was a good teaching in accordance with God’s will, then there’s not much we can do for you.

Paul,
You didn’t seem to understand what I wrote, but it’s OK. There is not one single thing “you” either individually or collectively (meaning those who follow you) can do for me, period. So we’re fine without “each other.” You’ll be fine, and I am certainly fine, though you probably don’t think so. I care not a whit about that.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
You didn’t seem to understand what I wrote, but it’s OK.

I understood perfectly. You said that Brigham Young and the other LDS prophets did not lead the saints astray because “astray” means “not in accordance with the will of God” , and the ugly racist doctrines of the LDS are in accord with the will of God.

Fine, believe what you want. Good luck with that.

 

[ParkerD]

I understood perfectly. You said that Brigham Young and the other LDS prophets did not lead the saints astray because “astray” means “not in accordance with the will of God” , and the ugly racist doctrines of the LDS are in accord with the will of God.

Fine, believe what you want. Good luck with that.

Paul,
I will. I wrote earlier “what God either wills or allows for His chosen people”, which is quite different than what you have noted here, meaning that you really did not understand what I wrote, whether by your own choice or by stopping reading when you found something you could jump on the bandwagon about.

Well, jump on whatever bandwagon you want to jump on. It is absolutely of no concern to me. The LDS are recovering from the sad days of prejudice in this country. There are wards and temples where blacks and whites attend together and wards where everything done is done by blacks and they do a wonderful job (of course) and they have the Spirit in their lives and are progressing through the blessings of heaven just like everyone else receives those same blessings by living the gospel. There are people who will always say “we’re oppressed” but that is human nature and no one can change that.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
I will. I wrote earlier “what God either wills or allows for His chosen people”, which is quite different than what you have noted here, meaning that you really did not understand what I wrote, whether by your own choice or by stopping reading when you found something you could jump on the bandwagon about.

Well, jump on whatever bandwagon you want to jump on. It is absolutely of no concern to me. The LDS are recovering from the sad days of prejudice in this country. There are wards and temples where blacks and whites attend together and wards where everything done is done by blacks and they do a wonderful job (of course) and they have the Spirit in their lives and are progressing through the blessings of heaven just like everyone else receives those same blessings by living the gospel.

Fine, and that’s a beautiful thing - you’ve finally caught up with civilized folks.

But try as you may, you cannot obscure the fact that your divinely appointed prophets taught gross error in faith and morals for 150 years, which means they were not divinely appointed at all, any more than is your current prophet.

 

[why_me]

Fine, and that’s a beautiful thing - you’ve finally caught up with civilized folks.

But try as you may, you cannot obscure the fact that your divinely appointed prophets taught gross error in faith and morals for 150 years, which means they were not divinely appointed at all, any more than is your current prophet.

What about this Paul?

Slavery debate
Main article: Catholic Church and slavery
Two slaveholding states, Maryland and Louisiana, had large contingents of Catholic residents. Archbishop of Baltimore, John Carroll, had two black servants - one free and one a slave. The Society of Jesus owned a large number of slaves who worked on the community’s farms. Realizing that their properties were more profitable if rented out to tenant farmers rather that worked by slaves, the Jesuits began selling off their slaves in 1837.

In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:

We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.
However, the American church continued in deeds, if not in public discourse, to support slaveholding interests. Some American bishops misinterpreted In Supremo as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade.[3]

One outspoken critic of slavery was Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, Ohio. In an 1863 Catholic Telegraph editorial Purcell wrote:

“When the slave power predominates, religion is nominal. There is no life in it. It is the hard-working laboring man who builds the church, the school house, the orphan asylum, not the slaveholder, as a general rule. Religion flourishes in a slave state only in proportion to its intimacy with a free state, or as it is adjacent to it.” During the war, American bishops continued to allow slave-owners to take communion. During the Civil War, Pope Pius IX made no secret of his affinity for the Confederacy, and the American hierarchy was so fearful of local schisms that the bishops were reluctant to speak out on behalf of abolition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century_history_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States

It is true that Pope Pius IX liked the confederacy? And in deed, the catholic church in the south supported slavery?

 

[Anna_Scott]

What about this Paul?

Slavery debate
Main article: Catholic Church and slavery
Two slaveholding states, Maryland and Louisiana, had large contingents of Catholic residents. Archbishop of Baltimore, John Carroll, had two black servants - one free and one a slave. The Society of Jesus owned a large number of slaves who worked on the community’s farms. Realizing that their properties were more profitable if rented out to tenant farmers rather that worked by slaves, the Jesuits began selling off their slaves in 1837.

In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:

We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.
However, the American church continued in deeds, if not in public discourse, to support slaveholding interests. Some American bishops misinterpreted In Supremo as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade.[3]

One outspoken critic of slavery was Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, Ohio. In an 1863 Catholic Telegraph editorial Purcell wrote:

“When the slave power predominates, religion is nominal. There is no life in it. It is the hard-working laboring man who builds the church, the school house, the orphan asylum, not the slaveholder, as a general rule. Religion flourishes in a slave state only in proportion to its intimacy with a free state, or as it is adjacent to it.” During the war, American bishops continued to allow slave-owners to take communion. During the Civil War, Pope Pius IX made no secret of his affinity for the Confederacy, and the American hierarchy was so fearful of local schisms that the bishops were reluctant to speak out on behalf of abolition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century_history_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States

It is true that Pope Pius IX liked the confederacy? And in deed, the catholic church in the south supported slavery?

why me:

I will leave the particular issues of your post to PaulDupre, since your remarks are directed to him.

However, I will say that there are probably very few religions that could claim absolute innocence regarding the issue of slavery or racial discrimination.

What makes Mormonism different from most religions, is the claim that your Presidents are Prophets. If a Prophet claims a revelation from God, there is no margin for error. If what a Prophet speaks is not truth, then he has failed the test of a true Prophet of God.

Anna

 

[FreedByTruth]

I have grown up in an area of Arizona that is heavily Mormon, and more so, in a neighborhood near a Mormon Church. I have been a member of a team with a Mormon coach and captains that has taken a team picture in front of various LDS temples. The more I read about the central beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the more worried I become for the salvation of my friends and their relationship with God. On the other hand, I’ve grown up with Mormons and they rarely mention any of these doctrines. I feel that the newest generation is slightly ashamed of them or at least questioning their accuracy. The LDS that I have met have been good, God-fearing people who are trying their best to follow God in a religion that misunderstands Him and emphasizes that every family member be a member of the Church. Because of the family make up of their Church, I feel it is much harder for mormons to leave their religion. I pray for them and with them often (being sure to mention Jesus’ name in prayer) and have focused on what we share, in terms of morals and love for God. I preach by example.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have grown up in an area of Arizona that is heavily Mormon, and more so, in a neighborhood near a Mormon Church. I have been a member of a team with a Mormon coach and captains that has taken a team picture in front of various LDS temples. The more I read about the central beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the more worried I become for the salvation of my friends and their relationship with God. On the other hand, I’ve grown up with Mormons and they rarely mention any of these doctrines. I feel that the newest generation is slightly ashamed of them or at least questioning their accuracy.

The LDS that I have met have been good, God-fearing people who are trying their best to follow God in a religion that misunderstands Him and emphasizes that every family member be a member of the Church. Because of the family make up of their Church, I feel it is much harder for mormons to leave their religion. I pray for them and with them often (being sure to mention Jesus’ name in prayer) and have focused on what we share, in terms of morals and love for God. I preach by example.

FreedByTruth:

Welcome to CAF! :clapping:

Great comment.

Anna

 

[dianaiad]

This has probably been brought up numerous times but I am curious how Catholics view LDS and how LDS views Catholicism.

Catholics don’t think that Mormons are Christians. They don’t think our baptisms are valid, nor is anything else about us valid.

They will take our money, though.

 

[dianaiad]

Yep and that man, Joseph Smith, was a fraud who continues to cause people to believe heresies to this very day. Learn more about Joseph Smith at the following website:

mormoninfo.org/ But be warned. This is an evangelical website and therefore may not portray all correct teachings.

Why in the world would you send people to a website that you KNOW teaches inaccuracies?

Would you not be offended if I sent someone to CARM to learn about Catholicism–even with the disclaimer?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Catholics don’t think that Mormons are Christians. They don’t think our baptisms are valid, nor is anything else about us valid.

They will take our money, though.

Mormons claim that Catholics, and us poor Protestants too, are all apostate.

When I joined the Mormon Church (very short membership); I had to be baptized again, because my Christian Baptism, outside the Mormon Church, was not considered to be valid.

Mormons are very serious about taking money from their members. The tithing requirements are included in the lessons given to potential converts. So, Mormons “talk money,” before the baptism ever takes place.

Seems like the missionaries should use the time spent on the “money talk” to tell the potential converts what Mormons really believe.

So, what is your point here?

Anna

 

[ricko]

Catholics don’t think that Mormons are Christians. They don’t think our baptisms are valid, nor is anything else about us valid.

They will take our money, though.

The first sentence is incorrect. We don’t THINK that Mormons are not Christians.

The second sentence is unclear but if your’re giving away money I will take yours for sure.

 

[PaulDupre]

Thank you, Anna for quoting this so I could see it.
why me:

What about this Paul?

Slavery debate
Main article: Catholic Church and slavery
Two slaveholding states, Maryland and Louisiana, had large contingents of Catholic residents. Archbishop of Baltimore, John Carroll, had two black servants - one free and one a slave. The Society of Jesus owned a large number of slaves who worked on the community’s farms. Realizing that their properties were more profitable if rented out to tenant farmers rather that worked by slaves, the Jesuits began selling off their slaves in 1837.

**In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:

We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.**
However, the American church continued in deeds, if not in public discourse, to support slaveholding interests. Some American bishops misinterpreted In Supremo as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade.[3]

One outspoken critic of slavery was Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, Ohio. In an 1863 Catholic Telegraph editorial Purcell wrote:

“When the slave power predominates, religion is nominal. There is no life in it. It is the hard-working laboring man who builds the church, the school house, the orphan asylum, not the slaveholder, as a general rule. Religion flourishes in a slave state only in proportion to its intimacy with a free state, or as it is adjacent to it.” During the war, American bishops continued to allow slave-owners to take communion. During the Civil War, Pope Pius IX made no secret of his affinity for the Confederacy, and the American hierarchy was so fearful of local schisms that the bishops were reluctant to speak out on behalf of abolition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_ce…_United_States

It is true that Pope Pius IX liked the confederacy? And in deed, the catholic church in the south supported slavery?

why me, do you even read the stuff you copy-and-paste? The article says that the Catholic Church was anti-slavery, so much so that Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull condemning it. The article also says that there were courageous bishops who wrote against slavery, such as Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, Ohio.

It also says that there were some Catholics who disobeyed the Church’s stance against slavery, including a bishop who owned a slave and some Jesuits in two states who owned a number of slaves. I know from history that were also some Catholic lay persons who owned slaves. But all these Catholics were in violation of Catholic Church teaching.

That is completely different from Mormonism, whose prophets publicly taught that blacks were inferior and servants of Satan, encouraged hatred and fear of blacks and claimed that the bigotry they taught was revealed and commanded by God. When Mormons discriminated against blacks, they were in harmony with their church’s public prophetic teachings.

You can recognize the difference, can’t you?

 

[why_me]

That is completely different from Mormonism, whose prophets publicly taught that blacks were inferior and servants of Satan, encouraged hatred and fear of blacks and claimed that the bigotry they taught was revealed and commanded by God. When Mormons discriminated against blacks, they were in harmony with their church’s public prophetic teachings.

You can recognize the difference, can’t you?

Here is the thing Paul. Mormons that I have known are far from being racist. It does not matter what decade that I have been a part of with the mormons starting from the 70’s, I have not met racist mormons. That is the point. Even in the past, people of color sat in the same pews with whites. And people of color held the priesthood. There are many people with dark skin that held the priesthood in the 1960’s and in the 1970’s. And even if one goes back in time, they held the priesthood. The priesthood ban was not about color at all.

Now that being said, I have met many racist catholic in my time. Growing up catholic and being surrounded by catholics, I heard many racial slurs by Italian American, Irish American and Polish American catholics, including the slurs that were said in my own family.

To infer that mormons are racist is not true. Now of course, there are mormons who could be racist. But the church and the majority of its members were not or are not racist. Cutting and pasting is a two way street. I looked up some strange things popes have said and I could post them for all to see and claim, did catholics actually believe this? But what would be the point?

The mormon leaders have said many wonderful things…but these wonderful things have been ignored by the more antimormon catholics on this board. And that is okay. But not exactly fair. The catholic church in america was not innocent when it came to slavery and racism in the US. They could have done more to make catholic americans less racist in their attitudes. But they didn’t. I don’t remember a single catechism class when I was a boy that addressed racism by the catholics of my town. Let those without sin cast the first stone.

 

[TheosisM]

Here is the thing Paul. Mormons that I have known are far from being racist. It does not matter what decade that I have been a part of with the mormons starting from the 70’s, I have not met racist mormons. That is the point. Even in the past, people of color sat in the same pews with whites. And people of color held the priesthood. There are many people with dark skin that held the priesthood in the 1960’s and in the 1970’s. And even if one goes back in time, they held the priesthood. The priesthood ban was not about color at all.

Now that being said, I have met many racist catholic in my time. Growing up catholic and being surrounded by catholics, I heard many racial slurs by Italian American, Irish American and Polish American catholics, including the slurs that were said in my own family.

To infer that mormons are racist is not true. Now of course, there are mormons who could be racist. But the church and the majority of its members were not or are not racist. Cutting and pasting is a two way street. I looked up some strange things popes have said and I could post them for all to see and claim, did catholics actually believe this? But what would be the point?

The mormon leaders have said many wonderful things…but these wonderful things have been ignored by the more antimormon catholics on this board. And that is okay. But not exactly fair. The catholic church in america was not innocent when it came to slavery and racism in the US. They could have done more to make catholic americans less racist in their attitudes. But they didn’t. I don’t remember a single catechism class when I was a boy that addressed racism by the catholics of my town. Let those without sin cast the first stone.

This post is completely ironic. The Mormons you knew were not racist, but you knew many racist Catholics. How convenient. That may have been your experience, however I have heard (and experienced) otherwise (as far as racism in Mormonism, especially with that institutional policy), even though most Mormons are not racist, just like how most Catholics are not racist. You can’t make anyone less racist if they don’t want to be.

Your post is clearly colored by your preference for Mormonism and desire to paint Catholicism in a bad light in contrast to the big, bad racist Catholics. Paul is very right:

That is completely different from Mormonism, whose prophets publicly taught that blacks were inferior and servants of Satan, encouraged hatred and fear of blacks and claimed that the bigotry they taught was revealed and commanded by God. When Mormons discriminated against blacks, they were in harmony with their church’s public prophetic teachings.

You can recognize the difference, can’t you?

You can’t.

I’m sure there were and are racist Catholics. I’m sure that there were and are racist Mormons. Mormonism had an institutional policy saying that those of African lineage were not worthy (as a group) to hold their priesthood, and Mormon prophets and apostles made statements corroborating that, and added a whole mindset about *why *around that (even if that was just their ‘opinion’), as we see in those statements. This was finally fixed with a revelation from God in 1978. That is what we’re talking about, not your experience with all the perfect Mormons and the horrible racist Catholics.

-An African American Catholic

 

[twopekinguys]

Thank you, Anna for quoting this so I could see it.

why me, do you even read the stuff you copy-and-paste? The article says that the Catholic Church was anti-slavery, so much so that Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull condemning it. The article also says that there were courageous bishops who wrote against slavery, such as Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, Ohio.

It also says that there were some Catholics who disobeyed the Church’s stance against slavery, including a bishop who owned a slave and some Jesuits in two states who owned a number of slaves. I know from history that were also some Catholic lay persons who owned slaves. But all these Catholics were in violation of Catholic Church teaching.

That is completely different from Mormonism, whose prophets publicly taught that blacks were inferior and servants of Satan, encouraged hatred and fear of blacks and claimed that the bigotry they taught was revealed and commanded by God. When Mormons discriminated against blacks, they were in harmony with their church’s public prophetic teachings.

You can recognize the difference, can’t you?

Just a few interesting things I found on this.

1. In 1838, Joseph Smith answered the following question while en route from Kirtland to Missouri, as follows: “Are the Mormons abolitionists? No … we do not believe in setting the Negroes free.”(Smith 1977, p.120)
2. July 13, 1859: In an interview with Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, Brigham Young was asked:
   HG: What is the position of your church with respect to slavery?

BY: We consider it of divine institution and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

1. October 9, 1859: Brigham young, during a conference talk in the Tabernacle, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses 7:282, states:
   “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; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.”
2. 1850: Twelve Mormon slave owners possess between 60 and 70 black slaves in Deseret Territory. There is one Apostle, Charles C. Rich, among these slave owners.

All of these, and more, can be found with references at:

mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/blacks.html

I found this story on 2 different sites about Jane Elizabeth Manning James. I think I find this even more disturbing than regular run of the mill racism. She was sealed to Joe and Emma as a servant.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elizabeth_Manning_James
affirmation.org/voices/stumbling_towards_zion.shtml (not a great site, but verifies the information on the first)

What is also amazing is that majority of this information is currently left off of the lds official websites…hmmmmmmmm

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=945694e53aeab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

and

ldsgenesisgroup.org/jane_ensign.html

 

[twopekinguys]

I have seen many lds claim that JS was against slavery.

I just found this in the history of the church, volume 6. It appears he really just wanted to change ownership of the slaves so to speak. A forced purchase from their owners so they could be forced into battle. (boling mine)

It will be more honorable for us to receive Texas and set the negroes
free, and use the negroes and Indians against our foes. Don’t let Texas
go, lest our mothers and the daughters of the land should laugh us in the
teeth; and if these things are not so, God never spoke by any Prophet
since the world began.

How much better it is for the nation to bear a little expense than to

have the Indians and British upon us and destroy us all. We should grasp
all the territory we can. I know much that I do not tell. I have had
bribes offered me, but I have rejected them.

The government will not receive any advice or counsel from me: they

are self-sufficient. But they must go to hell and work out their own
salvation with fear and trembling.

The South holds the balance of power. By annexing Texas, I can do

away with this evil. As soon as Texas was annexed, I would liberate the
slaves in two or three States, indemnifying their owners, and send the
negroes to Texas, and from Texas to Mexico, where all colors are alike.
And if that was not sufficient, I would call upon Canada, and annex it.

boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI

I guess good ol JS wasn’t as liberal and forward thinking as many wouuld like to believe.

 

[why_me]

This post is completely ironic. The Mormons you knew were not racist, but you knew many racist Catholics. How convenient. That may have been your experience, however I have heard (and experienced) otherwise (as far as racism in Mormonism, especially with that institutional policy), even though most Mormons are not racist, just like how most Catholics are not racist. You can’t make anyone less racist if they don’t want to be.

Your post is clearly colored by your preference for Mormonism and desire to paint Catholicism in a bad light in contrast to the big, bad racist Catholics. Paul is very right:

-An African American Catholic

My post comes from my own experience. In my town many catholics were prejudice. Italian and irish americans were the worst. I should know, I have them in my family. This is not to say that they were bad people back in the 1960’s, 1970’s etc. They were just prejudice like many such catholics. Now was the catholic church racist? No. But many white members were. And I do not remember the the priest addressing the issue. And when I was 18, and discovered the Mormons in the west, I heard no one mention a racial slur toward african americans.

Paul is equating the mormon church to the KKK in tone. And just the opposite is true. I remember what is was like during the priesthood ban. I know that the mormons were praying that african americans would receive the priesthood and when they did, there was a celebration. And again, african americans were members of the lds church during the priesthood ban and so were many other people of color who had the priesthood. Mormons and the mormon church are far from being racist.

 

[why_me]

I guess good ol JS wasn’t as liberal and forward thinking as many wouuld like to believe.

Here are some of his views:

Joseph Smith’s Views
December 19, 2007 — RJH
When Joseph Smith ran for president in 1844, a pamphlet expressing his views (“General Smith’s Views”) was distributed across the nation. Probably penned by Phelps, the New York Herald described the document as “a very remarkable and original document…a more curious and unique thing has probably not been published since the time of Mohamet…” The following are some of Joseph’s positions*; they are worth reading for their striking humanity alone, born, no doubt out of his own deprivations:

“When the people are secure and their rights properly respected, then the four main pillars of prosperity, viz: agriculture, manufactures, navigation, and commerce, need the fostering care of government, and in so goodly a country as ours…it certainly is the highest point of subversion (sic) to protect the whole northern and southern, eastern and western, centre and circumference of the realm, by a judicious tariff.” =import tax]
“I will adopt in part the language of Mr. Madison’s inaugural address, ‘To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations, having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality towards belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries, and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender their own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves, and too elevated not to look down upon them in others.’”
“[T]o hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the constitution, which is the cement of the union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the states and to the people…to avoid the slightest interference with the rights of conscience, or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their full energy, the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press.”
[Prefaced by a lament against the corruption of the political nobility]: “Now, oh! people! people! turn unto the Lord and live; and reform this nation. Frustrate the designs of wicked men. Reduce Congress at least one half. Two Senators from a state and two members to a million of population, will do more business than the army that now occupy the halls of the National Legislature. Pay them two dollars and their board per diem; except Sundays, that is more than the farmer gets, and he lives honestly. Curtail the offices of government in pay, number and power; for the Philistine lords have shorn our nation of its goodly locks in the lap of Delilah.”
“Petition your state legislatures to pardon every convict in their several penitentiaries, blessing them as they go, and saying to them, in the name of the Lord, go thy way and sin no more. Advise your legislators when they make laws for larceny, burglary or any felony, to make the penalty applicable to work upon roads, public works, or any place where the culprit can be taught more wisdom and more virtue; and become more enlightened. Rigor and seclusion will never do as much to reform the propensities of man, as reason and friendship. Murder only can claim confinement or death. Let the penitentiaries be turned into seminaries of learning, where intelligence, like the angels of heaven, would banish such fragments of barbarism. Imprisonment for debt is a meaner practice than the savage tolerates with all his ferocity. ‘Amor vincit amnia.’ Love conquers all.”
“Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for ‘an hour of virtuous liberty on earth, is worth a whole eternity of bondage!’”

bycommonconsent.com/2007/12/19/joseph-smiths-views/