Mormonism and the Free State of Jones

[smaneck]

In a sermon on March 8, 1863, Young stated, “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 so.” (LDS Journal of Discourses, 10:110)

Given that this is written in 1863 it seems to me it is more likely condemning the raping of slaves than interracial marriage.

 

[smaneck]

I think the law you are speaking of is more about pagans, who didn't accept the One True God of the Jews. God repeatedly states He didn't want Jews mingling with others who's faith wasn't focused upon Him.

True, but Young was using the "chosen seed" in the same way, signifying for him a Mormon priest. But given the situation in 1863 he may not have been worried so much about mingling with non-Mormons as with taking advantage of women who had no right to refuse.

 

[smaneck]

I never said it was "part of any law". I said it was a standard rule, a social/cultural practice. Do you think everything started with a "law"? Laws, even today, can be developed from longstanding cultural practices. There are even cultural laws protecting cultural practices in place!

Uh, if you take the Genesis literally (which admittedly you can't) there would have been four people on the face of the earth at the time. Can we really talk about social and cultural norms?

 

[smaneck]

Why are you quoting from W. Woodruff's journal, when I'm quoting JS directly? Was Woodruff even alive when JS was head of the LDS? Who is "he... said if anyone"? BY? JS? Your quote is very confusing.

Yes, Woodruff knew Joseph Smith personally having been baptized into the LDS in 1833. He accompanied Smith to Missouri and was one of the Twelve Disciples during Smith's lifetime.

 

[durangodawood]

Not what was said. Blacks were not allowed into the priesthood until 1978. Does your church allow women to be pastors? Does that mean your church does not consider women fully human? Would this not invalidate your religion?

There's no need to confound the issue by comparing it to gender. I'm happy to explore gender questions in a thread dedicated to that topic. And even IF i have a double standard (which I dont), it doesnt change the morality of this question one bit.

We simply need to place a white man and a black man side by side and note which one was denied the full respect as a man by the church. Of course the church doesnt say out loud that one race is sort of "second class". That would be crass. They just did it, until way too recently.

 

[smaneck]

There's no need to confound the issue by comparing it to gender

How does that confound the issue? If denying blacks the priesthood makes them less human then denying it to women makes them less human as well.

I'm happy to explore gender questions in a thread dedicated to that topic. And even IF i have a double standard (which I dont), it doesnt change the morality of this question one bit.

Which is why it applies to women as well. In any case, you are the one who derailed my thread by using it to bash the LDS which was never my intention.

We simply need to place a white man and a black man side by side and note which one was denied the full respect as a man by the church.

You said it made them less human, not less manly.

Of course the church doesnt say out loud that one race is sort of "second class". That would be crass. They just did it, until way too recently.

Ditto with the issue of women in the ministry, except most churches still do this.

 

[durangodawood]

....Which is why it applies to women as well. In any case, you are the one who derailed my thread by using it to bash the LDS which was never my intention.

Not so. Post 2. By someone else.
But its hardly a derail really, as the topic dealt with Mormon regard for blacks.

You said it made them less human, not less manly.

I said less a man. By which I mean less human. That's exactly what I see when privilege or regard is denied based on nothing you can attach to individual character. The result is something like dividing humans into various species.

Ditto with the issue of women in the ministry, except most churches still do this.

I agree. I wish we were way further along in our culture with regard to gender equality. (Now this is a thread derail if we persist.)

 

[smaneck]

I said less a man.

This is what you said originally.

"Blacks were not considered fully human by the Church until 1978???"

By which I mean less human.

Then by that logic women are less human in nearly all churches.

I agree. I wish we were way further along in our culture with regard to gender equality. (Now this is a thread derail if we persist.)

Yes, if you agree that this equally disqualifies the claims of all those other churches who prevent women from serving in the ministry then the matter is settled. Most churches are as illegitimate as the LDS because they make a certain segment of our population less than human. Do you agree with that statement?

 

[durangodawood]

This is what you said originally.

"Blacks were not considered fully human by the Church until 1978???"

Then by that logic women are less human in nearly all churches.

Correct, in my estimation.

But for some reason, in the religious arena, womens' human equality and fullness is still widely disrespected. And so very few churches stand out in their moral recalcitrance. The problem can be chalked up to the conservatism that seems to be inherent in religion generally.

But with racial equality, it was very very few major institutions that as late as 1978 treated blacks as somehow not entitled to the fullness of human life. This kind of moral intransigence in institutions that aspired to respectability really did stand out.... certainly enough to make me question their claims to authority on matters of morality or even God's will.

 

[tickingclocker]

Mormons were never part of the KKK, that wasn't a mob Mormons demonstrating in Little Rock.

No. They weren't anywhere around. Not even standing with those who were beaten for being... not white. They were.... silent. Their church was.... silent. No. Martin Luther King was not a Mormon. He was a Christian believer. You know, a part of that "apostate" group, according to your belief system. Right.

 

[smaneck]

No. They weren't anywhere around. Not even standing with those who were beaten for being... not white. They were.... silent. Their church was.... silent. No. Martin Luther King was not a Mormon. He was a Christian believer. You know, a part of that "apostate" group, according to your belief system. Right.

The president of the LDS at the time believed MLK was a communist, but it is not like he invented that rumor. It was started by the Sovereignty Commission. And when MLK was assassinated Bob Jones University announced they would not be flying the flag at half mast for a Christian apostate. And it is not like Bob Jones was a Mormon university.

 

[tickingclocker]

The president of the LDS at the time believed MLK was a communist, but it is not like he invented that rumor. It was started by the Sovereignty Commission. And when MLK was assassinated Bob Jones University announced they would not be flying the flag at half mast for a Christian apostate. And it is not like Bob Jones was a Mormon university.

Bob Jones U. in in the heart of the deep south, so its no wonder. Just like all slavers were not Christian, all prejudiced people were not always Mormon.

 

[Alla27]

1978 is WAY late for any organization claiming a both a special connection to truth and moral authority.

why too long? how long is not too long?

 

[durangodawood]

why too long? how long is not too long?

Too long because contemporary morals at the time recognized that people of all "races" should be considered equal before God and before our institutions.

1978 is way late to the game, especially for an institution claiming some kind of moral authority.

And maybe there was once a fat wide gray area, a time when contemporary morals were in transition. Not sure when that was exactly, and it matters little for this case, because by 1978 we were well beyond it (at least for respectable institutions - if not for every single individual.)

 

[Alla27]

Too long because contemporary morals at the time recognized that people of all "races" should be considered equal before God and before our institutions.

what does it have to do with being equal before God?

 

[durangodawood]

what does it have to do with being equal before God?

Equal before God offers reinforcement for the ideal that people should be equal before the law and other human institutions.

 

[Alla27]

Equal before God offers reinforcement for the ideal that people should be equal before the law and other human institutions.

I have a question. Let's say I committed a crime. I got myself to prison. I lost my freedom(right). I couldn't vote(right). I lost my right to privacy(right) . Probably, I lost some more rights. Does it make me un-equal before God?

 

[durangodawood]

I have a question. Let's say I committed a crime. I got myself to prison. I lost my freedom(right). I couldn't vote(right). I lost my right to privacy(right) . Probably, I lost some more rights. Does it make me un-equal before God?

Hmm. Does crime make a person unfavorable before God? Does she need to make an atonement? Maybe. I'll leave that to the theologians.

For sure, we should presume that being black or white or Chinese does not make any difference, though.

 

[Alla27]

Equal before God offers reinforcement for the ideal that people should be equal before the law and other human institutions.

Do you know why black men did not have priesthood before 1978? do you know that Joseph Smith ordained black man? That man had priesthood. So, from the beginning of the restoration of true Gospel on earth black man had priesthood.
One more thing. Let's say God wants to test you. He wants to test your faith. So, He takes away from one blessing. Then He sees what your choice(s) will be. How does it make you un-equal before God? Another thing. Are all people the same? Are all of them great singers, or artists? Are all Einstein? I want to be genius. I am not. God did NOT give me this blessing.
Are females and males the same?

 

[Alla27]

I am so sorry for some mistakes.