"Kill Them All. God Knows His Own."

[Ironhold]

Do you deny that Joseph Smith said extremely racist things about blacks, including the claim that they ought to be considered a different species?

Nope.

Even a number of the "enlightened" people of the day didn't think highly of blacks; IIRC, Abe Lincoln himself made a few choice statements about them.

If you read the Black LDS link I gave you, however, you'll see that Joseph's opinion did slowly begin to shift near the end of his life, such that when he ran for President he proposed what he regarded as a non-violent and equitable means of abolition. Whatever his personal views were near the end, he eventually came to recognize that slavery couldn't stand any longer.

Do you also deny that the Book of Mormon is extremely racist in its presentation of Native Americans in that it says their skin tone is the result of a curse?

This is something that most people aren't given full context on, usually because the people who are telling them about the "shocking" material haven't themselves read it.

The main people written about in the Book of Mormon were part of a colony led by Lehi, a prophet. Unfortunately, not long after they landed, a massive rift developed that threatened the survival of the colony. Lehi favored Nephi, his #3 son, as the young man was industrious and a quick study. This infuriated #1 son Laman, who under the traditions of the time should have been the heir to everything. Within a surprisingly short amount of time, Laman and #2 son Lemuel had whipped up their households into a frenzy against Lehi and the others. Given that this was an extreme "house divided" situation, God decided to intervene. The Lamanites had their skin color darkened so that both factions could tell each other apart on sight, and soon after the Lamanites chose to settle elsewhere.

What most people don't tell everyone is that it goes back and forth as to which faction is the more righteous.

In some instances, both groups were wicked.

In other instances, one was more righteous than the other.

Yes, for a good chunk of the book, the Nephites are closer to God and so enjoy his favor. This, coupled with superior military leaders and a preference for armor (however crude), enable them to win the bulk of the military conflicts.

However, there are numerous instances in which the Lamanites are the more righteous. For example, at a period in which the bulk of the Nephites had abandoned organized religion, Samuel the Lamanite was given the prophetic call to preach unto them. Or when a group of robbers and thieves was plaguing the land at one point, they were able to recruit a number of Nephites... which they needed in order to replace the losses the Lamanites - who wanted no part of it - inflicted upon them in the process of driving them out.

Additionally, during the periods in which the Nephites were more righteous, there are accounts of individual groups of Lamanites who jump ship and follow their lead. For example, we have one group of Lamanites who took a vow of pacifism after realizing the carnage they had wrought through their wars; these people literally allowed themselves to be slaughtered by other Lamanites - who viewed them as traitors - than break their vow. Or we had another group of Lamanites who also took a vow of pacifism; when their lands were threatened, their teenaged sons rose to defend everyone so that their mothers and fathers did not have to break their vow (the sons, under the command of a Nephite officer, were so ferocious in battle that they frequently forced larger, more experienced units to pivot around to deal with them).

Then we have instances in which both groups were righteous, such as during the period after Christ visited the region. There were no wars or conflicts for several generations, and in fact it got to the point that you couldn't tell a large percentage of the Nephites and Lamanites apart.

So what ultimately happened?

Eventually, both groups wound up in a race to the bottom. The Nephites "won" in the sense that they wound up worse than the Lamanites, at which point they completely lost God's favor. Left on their own, they couldn't win and so were ultimately wiped out. The Lamanites only gave rise to some of the Native American population simply because they were the ones who were left.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nope.

Even a number of the "enlightened" people of the day didn't think highly of blacks; IIRC, Abe Lincoln himself made a few choice statements about them.

If you read the Black LDS link I gave you, however, you'll see that Joseph's opinion did slowly begin to shift near the end of his life, such that when he ran for President he proposed what he regarded as a non-violent and equitable means of abolition. Whatever his personal views were near the end, he eventually came to recognize that slavery couldn't stand any longer.



This is something that most people aren't given full context on, usually because the people who are telling them about the "shocking" material haven't themselves read it.

The main people written about in the Book of Mormon were part of a colony led by Lehi, a prophet. Unfortunately, not long after they landed, a massive rift developed that threatened the survival of the colony. Lehi favored Nephi, his #3 son, as the young man was industrious and a quick study. This infuriated #1 son Laman, who under the traditions of the time should have been the heir to everything. Within a surprisingly short amount of time, Laman and #2 son Lemuel had whipped up their households into a frenzy against Lehi and the others. Given that this was an extreme "house divided" situation, God decided to intervene. The Lamanites had their skin color darkened so that both factions could tell each other apart on sight, and soon after the Lamanites chose to settle elsewhere.

What most people don't tell everyone is that it goes back and forth as to which faction is the more righteous.

In some instances, both groups were wicked.

In other instances, one was more righteous than the other.

Yes, for a good chunk of the book, the Nephites are closer to God and so enjoy his favor. This, coupled with superior military leaders and a preference for armor (however crude), enable them to win the bulk of the military conflicts.

However, there are numerous instances in which the Lamanites are the more righteous. For example, at a period in which the bulk of the Nephites had abandoned organized religion, Samuel the Lamanite was given the prophetic call to preach unto them. Or when a group of robbers and thieves was plaguing the land at one point, they were able to recruit a number of Nephites... which they needed in order to replace the losses the Lamanites - who wanted no part of it - inflicted upon them in the process of driving them out.

Additionally, during the periods in which the Nephites were more righteous, there are accounts of individual groups of Lamanites who jump ship and follow their lead. For example, we have one group of Lamanites who took a vow of pacifism after realizing the carnage they had wrought through their wars; these people literally allowed themselves to be slaughtered by other Lamanites - who viewed them as traitors - than break their vow. Or we had another group of Lamanites who also took a vow of pacifism; when their lands were threatened, their teenaged sons rose to defend everyone so that their mothers and fathers did not have to break their vow (the sons, under the command of a Nephite officer, were so ferocious in battle that they frequently forced larger, more experienced units to pivot around to deal with them).

Then we have instances in which both groups were righteous, such as during the period after Christ visited the region. There were no wars or conflicts for several generations, and in fact it got to the point that you couldn't tell a large percentage of the Nephites and Lamanites apart.

So what ultimately happened?

Eventually, both groups wound up in a race to the bottom. The Nephites "won" in the sense that they wound up worse than the Lamanites, at which point they completely lost God's favor. Left on their own, they couldn't win and so were ultimately wiped out. The Lamanites only gave rise to some of the Native American population simply because they were the ones who were left.

Why did Joseph Smith slowly transition from racist to progressive and abolitionist if he was given divine revelation? I thought divine revelation leads to sudden epiphanies, not an evolving worldview.

 

[Ironhold]

Why did Joseph Smith slowly transition from racist to progressive and abolitionist if he was given divine revelation? I thought divine revelation leads to sudden epiphanies, not an evolving worldview.

To paraphrase the saying, "God gives light based on a person's ability to accept it."

You see, the church doesn't believe in God micro-managing things. Rather, we believe that he gives guidance based on what he knows people of the day are able to handle, and then he trusts them to use what brains they happen to have. He'll nudge people towards where they need to be, but it's on the person to actually get there.

For example, remember the whole bit with Jonah? Jonah was told to go warn a group of people that they'd be destroyed if they continued in their current path. Thing is, Jonah hated those people and so wanted to see them destroyed. That's why he tried to go the other way in the first place: his own personal biases were contrary to the light he was given, the light of compassion for one's fellows. God had to basically smack him upside the head before he'd go do his job, and even once he did it he had to be smacked upside the head again for him to finally learn the importance of what he'd just done and why it had to be done.

Or we have all the "But I say unto you" statements from the New Testament. The Mosiac Law had to spell things out and provide harsh punishments because the people the law were given to were idiots. "Moses hasn't come back from the mountains yet? Let's make a golden cow and call it God!" and all that. They'd just seen miracle after miracle, yet the minute Moses was out of sight or there was a string of bad luck, they started whining like petulant children. Couple this with the general culture of the day, and we had what we had. In contrast, Jesus was speaking to individuals who had the advantage of centuries of Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern, and Asian philosophy and scholarship plus a general degree of common sense. He was able to give them laws based on thoughts instead of actions, and concepts instead of harsh realities.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To paraphrase the saying, "God gives light based on a person's ability to accept it."

You see, the church doesn't believe in God micro-managing things. Rather, we believe that he gives guidance based on what he knows people of the day are able to handle, and then he trusts them to use what brains they happen to have. He'll nudge people towards where they need to be, but it's on the person to actually get there.

For example, remember the whole bit with Jonah? Jonah was told to go warn a group of people that they'd be destroyed if they continued in their current path. Thing is, Jonah hated those people and so wanted to see them destroyed. That's why he tried to go the other way in the first place: his own personal biases were contrary to the light he was given, the light of compassion for one's fellows. God had to basically smack him upside the head before he'd go do his job, and even once he did it he had to be smacked upside the head again for him to finally learn the importance of what he'd just done and why it had to be done.

Or we have all the "But I say unto you" statements from the New Testament. The Mosiac Law had to spell things out and provide harsh punishments because the people the law were given to were idiots. "Moses hasn't come back from the mountains yet? Let's make a golden cow and call it God!" and all that. They'd just seen miracle after miracle, yet the minute Moses was out of sight or there was a string of bad luck, they started whining like petulant children. Couple this with the general culture of the day, and we had what we had. In contrast, Jesus was speaking to individuals who had the advantage of centuries of Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern, and Asian philosophy and scholarship plus a general degree of common sense. He was able to give them laws based on thoughts instead of actions, and concepts instead of harsh realities.

Your example of Jonah does not comport with God giving guidance based on what people are able to handle. If Jonah was was told to do something and then "smacked upside the head" when he refused to do it, how exactly is that not God micro-managing?

 

[Ironhold]

Your example of Jonah does not comport with God giving guidance based on what people are able to handle. If Jonah was was told to do something and then "smacked upside the head" when he refused to do it, how exactly is that not God micro-managing?

Understand that I'm an MBA. This is my frame of reference.

Regular management is assigning a task, then checking in at a later point when the person who was given the task should have made a reasonable amount of progress. IE, "You've had an hour to do something that normally only takes people 30 minutes. What gives?"

Micro-managing is when someone stands over your shoulder, either literally or metaphorically, and tries to tell you what to do when they're not second-guessing you. IE, "Your mom standing over your shoulder while you try to get her computer working again after she clicked on another virus-laden attachment."

The situation with Jonah was more like the former: he had an objective and consistently refused to meet it, thus necessitating that management finally get involved.

Edit -

Yes, such comic strips as "Dilbert" and "Retail" are pretty spot-on as to what happens or does not happen in a corporate environment.

 

[Ran77]

For polygamy, the "Mormon Women" voting bloc was the swing bloc in Utah after women were given the right to vote circa the 1870s. In fact, this bloc wielded such power in the state that Utah was, briefly, the hub for the suffrage movement. But the "enlightened" folks in the Eastern US couldn't figure any of this out. Whenever word got out that the Mormon Women bloc yet again voted in favor of the church and in favor of polygamy, the response was to either presume massive corruption or presume massive ignorance and stupidity. It's no longer politically correct to presume that the women of the church were stupid (especially since a number of Mormon women had college degrees at the time and some of the first female medical doctors in the US were plural Mormon wives), but the allegations of corruption and voter fraud still persist.

I don't want to move the discussion off-topic, but since you mentioned how non-members have a problem understanding the reaction to polygamy I thought I could slip in a quick comment. It is a simple matter that outsiders want to see polygamy as something evil and they project that desire into their perception of the facts. The truth of the matter is that in polygamy, especially during that time, benefited women more than it did men. My wife has many friends who are middle-aged women who have never married. I feel sorry for these righteous ladies who live a lonely life through no fault of their own.

Hope all is going well for you.

 

[skalle]

My wife has many friends who are middle-aged women who have never married. I feel sorry for these righteous ladies who live a lonely life through no fault of their own.

Not being married != loneliness.

 

[Ran77]

Not being married != loneliness.

I'm not sure what you meant, but I'll take a stab at it.

What I haven't said is, not being married = loneliness. My comment is specific to these women whom I personally know. They have expressed their feelings on the matter to my wife and our mutual friends. These women would like to find a companion for all the wonderful reasons there are for having a spouse. I can also speak from personal experience that while I was single I felt loneliness; a specific kind of loneliness that comes from not having a spouse to share in my hopes, dreams, successes, failures, and so much more.

Is that clear?

 

[skalle]

My comment is specific to these women whom I personally know.

Fair enough.

 

[Radrook]

OK. Now for the ultimate test of whether or not I can believe your claims:

Do you deny that Joseph Smith said extremely racist things about blacks, including the claim that they ought to be considered a different species? Do you also deny that the Book of Mormon is extremely racist in its presentation of Native Americans in that it says their skin tone is the result of a curse?

I thought they admired the Native Americans because they considered them one of the lost tribes of Israel.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I thought they admired the Native Americans because they considered them one of the lost tribes of Israel.

No. Mormons are extremely racist.

 

[Radrook]

No. Mormons are extremely racist.

Well, it appears I was right about their belief in the lost tribes of Israel being identified with American Indians and Samoans and you were right about their reputation for being racist. When I personally conversed with them during a visit they paid me one minister was Samoan and the other Looked North European. They seemed to be on very friendly terms and assured me that Mormons were not racist. The Samoan, an approx. 275 pound 6'3" bull-like individual of a very placid disposition smiled in profound satisfaction as the pencil-necked cadaverous-like white Mormon expounded on how Samoans were a lost tribe of God's once chosen people Israel. They almost had me convinced and I was planning on attending their church until the high strung Anglo spoke about his ministry among Hispanics and I casually inquired if he happened to be Latino.

Instant ignorance-induced personality metamorphosis was the result!

"No! I am WHITE!" he growled and appeared to be ready to throw hands if necessary to defend his whitishness.

I briefly considered educating him by informing him that Latino is not a race but merely an ethnic cultural group whose members include all races, sometimes mixed and sometimes unmixed. However, I noticed the behemoth Samoan appeared emotionally discombobulated by his brother's unchristian display and just figured to tolerate their presence for a while until they would finally leave in order to spare him further embarrassment.

However, I did not taken this singular display as indicative of how all Mormons felt because that would have been an overgeneralization based on scanty evidence.

BTW
I found the following info on Mormons nd their racial views concerning Samoans and Native Americans.

Mormons and Native Americans: A Historical Overview

Explanation Video
http://www.reasons.org/videos/did-god-cAccording to Smith, when he found and translated the plates, they told of a lost tribe of Israel that migrated to the Americas many hundreds of years ago. These first Americans built a flourishing and advanced civilization, but one branch, the Lamanites, killed their righteous relatives, the Nephites. For this and their rejection of Christ's teachings, God cursed the Lamanites with dark skin and a degraded existence. The story maintained that the Lamanites would not regain white skin and a civilized way of life until they accepted Christ's teachings. Thus, the heavenly beings instructed Smith not only to restore the true Christian church, but also to bring salvation to Native Americans.reate-the-earth-before-the-sun-and-moon

For the past 175 years, the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) church has taught that Native Americans and Polynesians are descended from ancient seafaring Israelites. Recent DNA research confirms what anthropologists have been saying for nearly as many years, that Native Americans are originally from Siberia and Polynesians from Southeast Asia. In the current volume, molecular biologist Simon Southerton explains the theology and the science and how the former is being reshaped by the latter."


"Losing a Lost Tribe summarizes the molecular genetic data that have been used to reconstruct human migrations into the New World and Oceania. It also provides an illuminating discussion of the anthropological and Mormon perspectives on the origins of Native Americans and Polynesians. The theological implications of the genetic data are profound and unequivocal."


—Theodore G. Schurr, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology and Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania; consulting curator, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; contributor, New Perspectives on the First Americans

"In an incisive way, Simon Southerton clarifies the often cloudy waters that lie between religious belief and scientific findings. He presents a solid case for the science-based perspective on the origins of American and Polynesian native peoples, while acknowledging the difficulties that such a perspective might cause for the Mormon church."


—Peter S. Bellwood, Professor of Archaeology, Australian National University; author of The Polynesians: Prehistory of an Island People and Man's Conquest of the Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asia and Oceania; editor, Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association
http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/losingalosttribe_xb236.htm

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, it appears I was right about their belief in the lost tribes of Israel being identified with American Indians and Samoans and you were right about their reputation for being racist. When I personally conversed with them during a visit they paid me one minister was Samoan and the other Looked North European. they seemed to be on very friendly terms and assured me that Mormons were not racist. The Samoan, an approx. 275 pound 6'3" bull-like individual of a very placid disposition smiled in profound satisfaction as the pencil-necked cadaverous-like white Mormon expounded on how Samoans were a lost tribe of God's once chosen people Israel. They almost had me convinced and I was planning on attending their church until the high strung Anglo spoke about his ministry among Hispanics and I casually inquired if he happened to be Latino.

Instant ignorance-induced personality metamorphosis was the result!

"No! I am WHITE!" he growled and appeared to be ready to throw hands if necessary to defend his whitishness.

I briefly considered educating him by informing him that Latino is not a race but merely an ethnic cultural group whose members include all races, sometimes mixed and sometimes unmixed. However, I noticed the behemoth Samoan appeared emotionally discombobulated by his brother's unchristian display and just figured to tolerate their presence for a while until they would finally leave in order to spare him further embarrassment.

However, I did not taken this singular display as indicative of how all Mormons felt because that would have been an overgeneralization based on scanty evidence.

BTW
I found the following info on Mormons nd their racial views concerning Samoans and Native Americans.

I'm considering engaging Mormons in a long conversation and finally agreeing to join (I'm white with no tattoos and I dress nice so they'd love it) and then I'd tell them I'm gay and adopted (neither of which are true) just to see how they react.

 

[Radrook]

I'm considering engaging Mormons in a long conversation and finally agreeing to join (I'm white with no tattoos and I dress nice so they'd love it) and then I'd tell them I'm gay and adopted (neither of which are true) just to see how they react.

You might also try asking the white Mormon if he's an Australian Aborigine and if he has a Dingo for a pet to see how he reacts.

 

[Ran77]

No. Mormons are extremely racist.

This statement demonstrates a very high level of ignorance about the LDS. Which I always find amusing.

 

[Radrook]

This statement demonstrates a very high level of ignorance about the LDS. Which I always find amusing.

This statement demonstrates a very high level of ignorance about the LDS. Which I always find amusing.

My apologies to the Mormons since I spoke in haste.
I am not qualified to determine how each and every Mormon feels nor familiar enough with their present and past official policies to make such a statement. The only experience which might have been construed that way was once. All other encounters with the Mormons were respectful and they gave no indication of harboring any kind of racism. They focused on their message, were friendly and patient and gave a very good overall impression of wanting to help us spiritually.

 

[Ran77]

My apologies to the Mormons since I spoke in haste.
I am not qualified to determine how each and every Mormon feels nor familiar enough with their present and past official policies to make such a statement. The only experience which might have been construed that way was once. All other encounters with the Mormons were respectful and they gave no indication of harboring any kind of racism. They focused on their message, were friendly and patient and gave a very good overall impression of wanting to help us spiritually.

Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

This is something that's come up elsewhere, and the people - all Mainline Christians - who I am talking with are refusing to give me a straight answer.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/kill-them-all.html
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/07/kill-them-all-and-let-god-sort-them-out.html
http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/22/1209-albigensian-crusade-cathars-beziers/

In the early 1200s, the Roman Catholic Church declared a crusade against the Cathars, a Christian group that they had deemed "heretical". In 1209, a group of these Crusaders descended upon the French town of Beziers, where the local Catholics and Cathars had lived together in harmony for several years. The Crusaders demanded that the town turn over the local Cathars, but the town refused. In response, the Crusaders attacked the town, slaughtering approximately 20,000 people.

It is estimated that there were only a few hundred Cathars in the town at most, meaning that much of the carnage represented Catholics killing Catholics.

Nowadays such an action would be regarded as a war crime, but back then it was all kosher since the slaughter took place in God's name and the Cathars were nasty little "heretics".

What say you about this incident? It's a pretty clear-cut case of mainline Christianity being maintained by the sword,
yet the people who I am speaking with are waffling on even recognizing that it happened because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Christians made mistakes too.
What else?

 

[Ironhold]

Christians made mistakes too.
What else?

Made mistakes?

As I noted in my OP:

1. I have a very hard time finding mainline Christians who even admit that such an event happened.

2. Those who do admit that it happened go out of their way to avoid recognizing that blood was shed in God's name.

3. A few of those argue that the mentality should be carried forward today, that is "Just as heretics were killed back then, so should they be killed right now."

 

[Radrook]

Made mistakes?

As I noted in my OP:

1. I have a very hard time finding mainline Christians who even admit that such an event happened.

2. Those who do admit that it happened go out of their way to avoid recognizing that blood was shed in God's name.

3. A few of those argue that the mentality should be carried forward today, that is "Just as heretics were killed back then, so should they be killed right now."

That's nothing!

There was this couple who went to vacation in Austria and began asking to see the Kangaroos.

During Geography class, students were asked where Mexico is located and one student responded that it is somewhere in Viet Nam.

Another was asked if the knew who Fidel Castro was and the person answered that Fidel Castro was a famous Acid Rock singer.

Yet another was told that the Great Wall of China is in Australia and was shown a bogus map indicating that absurdity and she exclaimed.

"Really! I didn't know that! You learn something every day! Thanks!"

One person with presidential aspirations, thought that Africa is a country!

So if they are ignorant in what is normally to the majority of people on Earth common knowledge-it isn't at all surprising that they showed ignorance in reference to what you describe.