Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok -- you are playing the context and semantics game. Perhaps it would be better to say "anti-slavery." The abolitionist movement at the time was very radical, and in many cases encouraged violence.Mormons did not hold
slaves. They voted against slavery in a consistent block. Thus it was possible for many moderates to be both anti-abolitionist and anti-slavery.
Maybe he did say some things that seem insensitive to us to day. But guess what -- so did everyone else in the middle 19th century. So if you are going to cull anti-mormon literature to cast Joseph Smith and the Mormons in a bad light, I'm sure others could do the same with almost any other religion of the time.
That's what bugs me about anti-Mormon literature. They grasp at whatever they can find and then repeat it ad naseum for an echo chamer effect. But any quote that doesn't fit their agenda is never given the light of day. Expanding on the quote you provided above:
Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.
Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization."
Reads a bit differently with the additional context doesn't it? If anything he is trying to stave off racial tension with that statement, not trying to isolate blacks to a third-world existance. Like SeargentL, I'm going to leave it at that, because we'll just go in circles all night.
Excuse my french but how in the hell do you get "anti-slavery" from "But we do not believe in setting the negroes free".
I've already shown you an error in your statement that they were abolitionists. Now I'm to believe they didn't hold slaves. Proof?
I'm not discouting it because I didn't read what was in the link. I'm just saying I probably would have read it if it hadn't have been so overly biased.
And how to you quantify that Joseph Smith became a "stronger advocate against slavery"? Where is the proof in your statement? Did he say something or do something to indicate he became a "stronger advocate against slavery"?
Also.. what anti-mormon literature am I calling??... I'm using Joseph Smith's own quotes!!
And finally.. which is it.. On the one hand you seem to say "well that was the culture of the time"..
and on the other hand you seem to say "he wasn't racist and was against slavery.."
Which is it? Was it "the culture of the time" or was he racist..
Well this is an open forum where I tend to believe most people would like to be further educated on topics they don't fully understand. You said you have done extensive research on the subject and you have concluded that there wasn't a curse. Can you fill us in on the research?
I spent 5 minutes finding this:
Preaching in 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, Brigham Young declared:
Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . 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 favourable 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
Maybe I have this wrong.. maybe I don't. I'm not LDS... but let me build my case..
1. Mr. Young States the race will endure a dreadful curse and can never hold the priesthood
2. In 1978 the ban on black (males?) in the priesthood is "lifted".
1 + 2 = Church thought there was a curse.. (of course only in my opinion)
Brigham Young does not necessarily speak for the membership of the Church. He was incorrect in that "the race" does hold the Priesthood. I don't care what he personally believed. You will note that Brigham does not state God revealed this to him; this was his own opinion as a man and not a Prophet. The role of Prophet, church administrator, and man are three distinct roles. In my original post, I warned against using such pieces of information, because they are not included in Church Canon and if something is not in Church Canon, such as the Doctrine and Covenants, it's not a Church belief.
Allow me to help you with your math.
"Mr. Young States the race will endure a dreadful curse and can never hold the priesthood" = Brigham Young believed Africans were cursed and would never hold the Priesthood.
"In 1978 the ban on black (males?) in the priesthood is 'lifted'." = The Church disagreed with Brigham Young.
Today, males of African descent hold the Priesthood. = Brigham Young was wrong and was therefore not speaking as an inspired Prophet of God but as a man with a personal opinion.
The problem with your math is as follows:
(NOTE:Catholics please forgive me. This example is NOT meant to offend your faith. I am a graduate of a Jesuit University and have the highest respect for your faith and educational institutions. May God always bless the University of San Francisco and the Dons.)
1. There have been a substantial number of Catholic Priests arrested for sexual abuse.
2. The Catholic Church has paid untold millions to settle sexual abuse lawsuits.
1 + 2 = The Catholic Church believes in sexually abusing its youth.
As you can see, the sum is incorrect. Some Priests have succumbed to their own base instincts, but none of his establishes a belief within the faith itself.
You are now free to post whatever you like; however, I have nothing further to add to this topic.
Let’s try to clean this mess up before it stains the carpet. First, it has NEVER, I am going to repeat that, NEVER been the official policy or position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that people of ANY color are cursed. Now, before anyone goes rushing to the internet and pulls random statements from former leaders of the Church indicating otherwise, one would be wise to understand such statements were not canon. Any statements made by former leaders regarding the status of African Americans were pure speculation and do NOT represent official Church policy. As a matter of record, there is NOTHING written explaining why African American males were denied the Priesthood. It is only known that the first Prophet of the Church pronounced they would not be ordained until a future time; however, African American males were ordained to the Priesthood prior to the declaration of the first Prophet, and their Priesthood remained in effect. I will say there is SPECULATION that African American males were denied the Priesthood because a promise of the Lord to Abraham had not been fulfilled. It is IMPORTANT to understand that ALL African Americans were NEVER denied membership in the Church.
Next, it WAS mainstream Christian Churches that justified slavery by calling ALL Africans descendants of Cain and were therefore cursed and less than human. NO modern Christian Church subscribes to such beliefs today unless it would be a white supremacy church.
Someone mentioned that he or she only sees white people in the Church. It is clear he or she is not looking close enough. Spanish is now the dominant language in the Church today, and Hispanics are the dominant portion of the Church population. The Church is also heavily populated by Pacific Islanders and Asians. Yes, the Tabernacle Choir is primarily populated by Caucasians, but its members come from Utah, which is primarily of a Caucasian makeup.
Lamanites were an ancient people of the Americas, who are documented in the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Book of Mormon states they were cursed with a dark appearance because of their gross disobedience to the Lord. No, any descendants of the Lamanites are not cursed.
The problem with all of this stuff is that some people with a little information continually spread inaccurate, distorted, or false information. If one wants accurate information about the LDS Church and its policies and practices, then seek the information from an official representative of the Church. Same applies to Catholicism, or any other religion. DO NOT get information from former disgruntled members of any religion or people who claim to know something about a particular Church.
While it is true and reprehensible and extremely sad that some who claimed to be Christians defended the practice of slave trading, there was NEVER and I say NEVER an official statement made by the "church" presented as doctrine or an some revelation from God. This is a big difference.
There were many, many Christians who abhorred slavery such as the likes of William Wilberforce. There is a huge distinction between some "Christians" holding to unchristian practices and an organized "church" making an official declaration making the policy obligatory to all!
Brigham Young does not necessarily speak for the membership of the Church. He was incorrect in that "the race" does hold the Priesthood. I don't care what he personally believed. You will note that Brigham does not state God revealed this to him; this was his own opinion as a man and not a Prophet. The role of Prophet, church administrator, and man are three distinct roles. In my original post, I warned against using such pieces of information, because they are not included in Church Canon and if something is not in Church Canon, such as the Doctrine and Covenants, it's not a Church belief.
Allow me to help you with your math.
"Mr. Young States the race will endure a dreadful curse and can never hold the priesthood" = Brigham Young believed Africans were cursed and would never hold the Priesthood.
"In 1978 the ban on black (males?) in the priesthood is 'lifted'." = The Church disagreed with Brigham Young.
Today, males of African descent hold the Priesthood. = Brigham Young was wrong and was therefore not speaking as an inspired Prophet of God but as a man with a personal opinion.
The problem with your math is as follows:
(NOTE:Catholics please forgive me. This example is NOT meant to offend your faith. I am a graduate of a Jesuit University and have the highest respect for your faith and educational institutions. May God always bless the University of San Francisco and the Dons.)
1. There have been a substantial number of Catholic Priests arrested for sexual abuse.
2. The Catholic Church has paid untold millions to settle sexual abuse lawsuits.
1 + 2 = The Catholic Church believes in sexually abusing its youth.
As you can see, the sum is incorrect. Some Priests have succumbed to their own base instincts, but none of his establishes a belief within the faith itself.
You are now free to post whatever you like; however, I have nothing further to add to this topic.
Illogic!
1. There have been a substantial number of Catholic Priests arrested for sexual abuse.
2. The Catholic Church has paid untold millions to settle sexual abuse lawsuits.
1 + 2 = The Catholic Church believes in DEFENDING in the courtroom those who sexually abuse children. That is a far cry from condoning it. If one of my children were to commit a crime, I would do all I could to see that he received a fair and good defense, without condoning his actions.
Your analogy further breaks down because NO official "revelation" was given at any time to the Catholic Church endorsing the sexual abuse of children!
Furthermore, a TRUE prophet of God never speaks untruths in God's name. Such prophets used to be stoned in times past! But it is always handy, when societal changes and pressure against certains beliefs and practices come, to simply have another "revelation" nullifying the first!
I would be interested to know from anyone here who knew black people prior to the 1978 declaration by the mormon church, how they felt regarding the ban. Did they feel discriminated against? Was it even an issue with them? Afterwards, besides being able to hold the priesthood, how did the black church goers respond? The reason I ask is because around that time, there was a growing sense of empowerment within the black community and it dramatically changed their position in the country.
Brigham Young does not necessarily speak for the membership of the Church. He was incorrect in that "the race" does hold the Priesthood. I don't care what he personally believed. You will note that Brigham does not state God revealed this to him; this was his own opinion as a man and not a Prophet. The role of Prophet, church administrator, and man are three distinct roles. In my original post, I warned against using such pieces of information, because they are not included in Church Canon and if something is not in Church Canon, such as the Doctrine and Covenants, it's not a Church belief.
Allow me to help you with your math.
"Mr. Young States the race will endure a dreadful curse and can never hold the priesthood" = Brigham Young believed Africans were cursed and would never hold the Priesthood.
"In 1978 the ban on black (males?) in the priesthood is 'lifted'." = The Church disagreed with Brigham Young.
Today, males of African descent hold the Priesthood. = Brigham Young was wrong and was therefore not speaking as an inspired Prophet of God but as a man with a personal opinion.
The problem with your math is as follows:
(NOTE:Catholics please forgive me. This example is NOT meant to offend your faith. I am a graduate of a Jesuit University and have the highest respect for your faith and educational institutions. May God always bless the University of San Francisco and the Dons.)
1. There have been a substantial number of Catholic Priests arrested for sexual abuse.
2. The Catholic Church has paid untold millions to settle sexual abuse lawsuits.
1 + 2 = The Catholic Church believes in sexually abusing its youth.
As you can see, the sum is incorrect. Some Priests have succumbed to their own base instincts, but none of his establishes a belief within the faith itself.
You are now free to post whatever you like; however, I have nothing further to add to this topic.
Mr. Young may not necessarily speak for the membership of the church but his beliefs and comments certaintly influenced the early church. Which again begs the question.. why do you need a declaration to "lift" the ban against African Americans entering the priesthood if they weren't believed to be cursed?
The Catholic comparison simply doesn't float in this context. The Catholics weren't lifting a ban which excluded a particular race. The $'s spent to settle lawsuits were paid because the accusations were true!!
So using your example the ban was lifted because the it was true that at one time blacks were believed to be cursed.
In the end I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Plenty of Christian denominations have much to be ashamed of and I don't deny that. However, not acknowledging past or trying make it seem "not so bad".. just makes things worse.
Your analogy further breaks down because NO official "revelation" was given at any time to the Catholic Church endorsing the sexual abuse of children!
Furthermore, a TRUE prophet of God never speaks untruths in God's name. Such prophets used to be stoned in times past! But it is always handy, when societal changes and pressure against certains beliefs and practices come, to simply have another "revelation" nullifying the first!
FYI, I am not catholic.
I understand what you are saying; however, no official declaration was ever made regarding the prohibition of African American Males to the Priesthood. Official Declarations are contained in Canon. Next, Brigham Young NEVER stated that God revealed the former practice to him nor did he ever invoke the policy in God's name. God is not constantly talking to a Prophet. Prophets are men, not Gods. They are subject to the weaknessess of men. Jona is a classic example.
Last edited by SergeantL; 11-20-2007 at 09:22 AM..
"I think its funny considering for about 150 years mormonism taught that "Blacks" were cursed... that was until 1978 when God changed his/her/its mind."
To
"I think its funny considering up until 1978 black males were banned from the Priesthood."
Now.. the original poster asked the question if there is racism in the mormon church.. so what is the stance of the church concerning Indians (Native Americans)?
In the end I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Plenty of Christian denominations have much to be ashamed of and I don't deny that. However, not acknowledging past or trying make it seem "not so bad".. just makes things worse.
Once again, I don't see how I can make this any clearer. I have said nothing about the practice "not being so bad." The Church is a body of people and not everyone thinks alike. The president of a corporation may believe manufacturing widgets is a good idea. He may use his authority to institute the process of manufacture, and the employees of the company may submit to his will and build the product; however, none of this means the employees believe building widgets is a good idea or actually support this belief.
When you say the Church believed Africans were cursed, you are saying I or any other member of the Church believed they were cursed. Since my Godparents were African American and I have been a member since well before 1978, I must assume you think I also believe my Godparents were cursed, and the fact is I did not nor do I. Brigham Young was a great man, but he was just that, a man, and subject to human fallibility.
The LDS Church has a line of authority and unlike some other churches of which I am aware, the members don’t take a vote and oust the Pastor or Minister or change the Canon or procedures of the Church just because we don’t agree with the direction of the Church. In our faith, one either obeys—and this does not mean one agrees—or one leaves the Church. There are no other options.
Here are two analogies. I served in Vietnam. I did not believe in the war, but I submitted to my government. Can you say just because Lyndon Johnson declared the war to be correct meant the United States believed it to be correct or justified? As we know, history proves the United States did not think the war was justified or correct. Does the United States believe the current action in Iraq to be correct? Regardless of the fact that men and women are submitting and supporting President Bush by fighting in Iraq, it is clear the United States as a whole does not support or believe in the actions in that country.
As you have written, we both have our views. Since I am a long standing member of the LDS faith, I have more experience and insight into the issue than you. I am immersed in the LDS community and beliefs everyday, and I know how the members feel and behave. There is no doubt some early members took Brigham at his word and believed in the curse, but history has proven the Church and its members did not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
