This church is super lame

[Reluctant Watchman]

If I provide the statements and the links where they can be found, will you give me your word that you will answer the questions I posed and not deflect and bring up other issues you have with the church?

As long as the source material was public and recorded while Joseph was alive. None of these 132 shenanigans or past recollections. These need to be statements that were public and Joseph could have had the opportunity to either reject or validate the authenticity.

[LDS Watchman]

If I provide the statements and the links where they can be found, will you give me your word that you will answer the questions I posed and not deflect and bring up other issues you have with the church?

As long as the source material was public and recorded while Joseph was alive. None of these 132 shenanigans or past recollections. These need to be statements that were public and Joseph could have had the opportunity to either reject or validate the authenticity.

Okay, you got it. I'll dig them up.

[Reluctant Watchman]

If I provide the statements and the links where they can be found, will you give me your word that you will answer the questions I posed and not deflect and bring up other issues you have with the church?

As long as the source material was public and recorded while Joseph was alive. None of these 132 shenanigans or past recollections. These need to be statements that were public and Joseph could have had the opportunity to either reject or validate the authenticity.

Okay, you got it. I'll dig them up.

Sounds good. Also, I won’t defend Joseph if I think the statements are wrong.

[The Red Pill]

Why do you keep dodging the question. I'm asking about what Joseph said about blacks. This can all be verified as having come from him.

I'll ask again. And please answer the questions this time.

So do you think Joseph Smith was wrong about what he said about blacks? Was he lying? Was he a racist biggot? What is a concerned member today supposed to do with that information. I mean you literally have the prophet of the restoration telling people repeatedly that blacks are supposed to be slaves because their under a curse of God and that it's wrong to try and abolish slavery.

Who in the 21st century is okay with that?

Do you see why it might be prudent for the church to try and keep these statements under wraps because people cannot handle the truth?

Show me the sources about what Joseph said. I want links or references that can be found.

BTW, these sources better be something that was shared publicly while he was alive. Show me where he taught this to the saints and it was recorded as doctrine. I don't want any of this funny business of years or decades later, and in some altered church history record.

It's going to hard to find them, because the things he is quoting you came from Brigham. This is yet another example of let's "dirty up" Joseph.

I can show you quotes from Brigham that will curl your hair. Absolutely horrendous racist comments...but the Watchman doesn't mention Brigham...he mentions Joseph...ask yourself why?

From the corporation standpoint, it's better to throw Joseph under the bus (and they have) than Brigham. They feel if they "dirty up" Joseph, then it's just the way it's always been...warts and all.

But if they tell the truth about Brigham...then the ENTIRE succession comes into question, the entire line of authority comes into question, practicing polygamy at all comes into question, the ENTIRE church comes into question...basically to many members asking pesky questions...period.

So Joseph was selected to go under the bus.

[LDS Watchman]

Why do you keep dodging the question. I'm asking about what Joseph said about blacks. This can all be verified as having come from him.

I'll ask again. And please answer the questions this time.

So do you think Joseph Smith was wrong about what he said about blacks? Was he lying? Was he a racist biggot? What is a concerned member today supposed to do with that information. I mean you literally have the prophet of the restoration telling people repeatedly that blacks are supposed to be slaves because their under a curse of God and that it's wrong to try and abolish slavery.

Who in the 21st century is okay with that?

Do you see why it might be prudent for the church to try and keep these statements under wraps because people cannot handle the truth?

Show me the sources about what Joseph said. I want links or references that can be found.

BTW, these sources better be something that was shared publicly while he was alive. Show me where he taught this to the saints and it was recorded as doctrine. I don't want any of this funny business of years or decades later, and in some altered church history record.

It's going to hard to find them, because the things he is quoting you came from Brigham. This is yet another example of let's "dirty up" Joseph.

I can show you quotes from Brigham that will curl your hair. Absolutely horrendous racist comments...but the Watchman doesn't mention Brigham...he mentions Joseph...ask yourself why?

From the corporation standpoint, it's better to throw Joseph under the bus (and they have) than Brigham. They feel if they "dirty up" Joseph, then it's just the way it's always been...warts and all.

But if they tell the truth about Brigham...then the ENTIRE succession comes into question, the entire line of authority comes into question, practicing polygamy at all comes into question, the ENTIRE church comes into question...basically to many members asking pesky questions...period.

So Joseph was selected to go under the bus.

You're once again demonstrating your lack of knowledge regarding church history, just like you were unaware of what Joseph actually said regarding the authority of the twelve apostles. I don't say that to belittle you, I just really hope that you are willing to reevaluate your position regarding Brigham Young and the church post Joseph Smith once you have more of the facts about what Joseph actually taught and did.

The church actually is currently throwing Brigham under the bus to take the heat off of Joseph. That's how offensive the statements Joseph made are in the 21st century. Stay tuned. I will have the statements from Joseph Smith along shortly(and know they're not from Brigham and Brigham didn't alter them, either).

[The Red Pill]

Why do you keep dodging the question. I'm asking about what Joseph said about blacks. This can all be verified as having come from him.

I'll ask again. And please answer the questions this time.

So do you think Joseph Smith was wrong about what he said about blacks? Was he lying? Was he a racist biggot? What is a concerned member today supposed to do with that information. I mean you literally have the prophet of the restoration telling people repeatedly that blacks are supposed to be slaves because their under a curse of God and that it's wrong to try and abolish slavery.

Who in the 21st century is okay with that?

Do you see why it might be prudent for the church to try and keep these statements under wraps because people cannot handle the truth?

Show me the sources about what Joseph said. I want links or references that can be found.

BTW, these sources better be something that was shared publicly while he was alive. Show me where he taught this to the saints and it was recorded as doctrine. I don't want any of this funny business of years or decades later, and in some altered church history record.

It's going to hard to find them, because the things he is quoting you came from Brigham. This is yet another example of let's "dirty up" Joseph.

I can show you quotes from Brigham that will curl your hair. Absolutely horrendous racist comments...but the Watchman doesn't mention Brigham...he mentions Joseph...ask yourself why?

From the corporation standpoint, it's better to throw Joseph under the bus (and they have) than Brigham. They feel if they "dirty up" Joseph, then it's just the way it's always been...warts and all.

But if they tell the truth about Brigham...then the ENTIRE succession comes into question, the entire line of authority comes into question, practicing polygamy at all comes into question, the ENTIRE church comes into question...basically to many members asking pesky questions...period.

So Joseph was selected to go under the bus.

You're once again demonstrating your lack of knowledge regarding church history, just like you were unaware of what Joseph actually said regarding the authority of the twelve apostles. I don't say that to belittle you, I just really hope that you are willing to reevaluate your position regarding Brigham Young and the church post Joseph Smith once you have more of the facts about what Joseph actually taught and did.

The church actually is currently throwing Brigham under the bus to take the heat off of Joseph. That's how offensive the statements Joseph made are in the 21st century. Stay tuned. I will have the statements from Joseph Smith along shortly(and know they're not from Brigham and Brigham didn't alter them, either).

Great..

Wait until you see the quotes from Brigham.

And just how specifically is the church throwing Brigham under the bus??? I haven't seen any of this.

And, I explained in an earlier post that the apostles had no authority to recieve revelation for the church...just themselves and their calling...kinda like ALL of us today. So...your victory lap is a bit premature.

It's Joseph with the tire tracks on his back.

[LDS Watchman]

If I provide the statements and the links where they can be found, will you give me your word that you will answer the questions I posed and not deflect and bring up other issues you have with the church?

As long as the source material was public and recorded while Joseph was alive. None of these 132 shenanigans or past recollections. These need to be statements that were public and Joseph could have had the opportunity to either reject or validate the authenticity.

Okay, you got it. I'll dig them up.

Sounds good. Also, I won’t defend Joseph if I think the statements are wrong.

Fair enough. I don't expect you to defend Joseph if you think his statements are wrong. But I do expect you to hold him to the same standard as Brigham Young and not give him a free pass for his statements that are extremely racist by 21st century standards.

So without further ado, here you go:

Please read each statement carefully and don't just skim them and wave them away. The truth matters.

From the Messenger and Advocate

Brother Oliver Cowdery:

Dear Sir—This place having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called abolitionists; if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the southern public, relative to the views and sentiments I believe, as an individual, and am able to say, from personal knowledge, are the feelings of others, you are at liberty to give them publicity in the columns of the Advocate. I am prompted to this course in consequence, in one respect, of many elders having gone into the Southern States, besides, there now being many in that country who have already embraced the fulness of the gospel, as revealed through the book of Mormon,—having learned, by experience, that the enemy of truth does not slumber, nor cease his exertions to bias the minds of communities against the servants of the Lord, by stiring up the indignation of men upon all matters of importance or interest.

Thinking, perhaps, that the sound might go out, that “an abolitionist” had held forth several times to this community, and that the public feeling was not aroused to create mobs or disturbances, leaving the impression that all he said was concurred in, and received as gospel and the word of salvation. I am happy to say, that no violence or breach of the public peace was attempted, so far from this, that all except a very few, attended to their own avocations and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls.

I am aware, that many who profess to preach the gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the south, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflection of all men, and especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair States of the South, and set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue.

No one will pretend to say, that the people of the free states are as capable of knowing the evils of slavery as those who hold them. If slavery is an evil, who, could we expect, would first learn it? Would the people of the free states, or would the slave states? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact. If the fact was learned first by those immediately concerned, who would be more capable than they of prescribing a remedy?

And besides, are not those who hold slaves, persons of ability, discernment and candor? Do they not expect to give an account at the bar of God for their conduct in this life? It may, no doubt, with propriety be said, that many who hold slaves live without the fear of God before their eyes, and, the same may be said of many in the free states. Then who is to be the judge in this matter?

So long, then, as those of the free states are not interested in the freedom of the slaves, any other than upon the mere principles of equal rights and of the gospel, and are ready to admit that there are men of piety who reside in the South, who are immediately concerned, and until they complain, and call for assistance, why not cease their clamor, and no further urge the slave to acts of murder, and the master to vigorous discipline, rendering both miserable, and unprepared to pursue that course which might otherwise lead them both to better their condition? I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.

And further, what benefit will it ever be to the slave for persons to run over the free states, and excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands who understand nothing relative to their circumstances or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never travelled in the South, and scarcely seen a negro in all their life. How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons—boys and others who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me. And when I see persons in the free states signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an array of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South! What can divide our Union sooner, God only knows!

After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
“And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.— God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”—Gen, 8:25, 26, 27.

Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel.

I must not pass over a notice of the history of Abraham, of whom so much is spoken in the scriptures. If we can credit the account, God conversed with him from time to time, and directed him in the way he should walk, saying, “I am the Almighty God: walk before me and be thou perfect.” Paul says that the gospel was preached to this man. And it is further said, that he had sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants, &c. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to this holy man, he would have been instructed differently. And if he was instructed against holding men-servants and maid-servants, he never ceased to do it; consequently must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord and thereby lost his blessings—which was not the fact.

Some may urge, that the names, man-servant and maid-servant, only mean hired persons who were at liberty to leave their masters or employers at any time. But we can easily settle this point by turning to the history of Abraham’s descendants, when governed by a law given from the mouth of the Lord himself. I know that when an Israelite had been brought into servitude in consequence of debt, or otherwise, at the seventh year he went from the task of his former master or employer; but to no other people or nation was this granted in the law to Israel. And if, after a man had served six years, he did not wish to be free, then the master was to bring him unto the judges, boar his ear with an awl, and that man was “to serve him forever.” The conclusion I draw from this, is that this people were led and governed by revelation and if such a law was wrong God only is to be blamed, and abolitionists are not responsible.

Now, before proceeding any farther, I wish to ask one or two questions:—Were the apostles men of God, and did they preach the gospel? I have no doubt but those who believe the bible will admit these facts, and that they also knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote to the churches which they were instrumental in building up.

This being admitted, the matter can be put to rest without much argument, if we look at a few items in the New Testament. Paul says:
“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men-pleasers: but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart: With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” Eph. 6:5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Here is a lesson which might be profitable for all to learn, and the principle upon which the church was anciently governed, is so plainly set forth, that an eye of truth might see and understand. Here, certainly are represented the master and servant; and so far from instructions to the servant to leave his master, he is commanded to be in obedience, as unto the Lord: the master in turn is required to treat them with kindness before God, understanding at the same time that he is to give an account.— The hand of fellowship is not withdrawn from him in consequence of having servants.

The same writer, in his first epistle to Timothy, the sixth chapter, and the five first verses, says:

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren: but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness: he is proud, knowing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

This is so perfectly plain, that I see no need of comment. The scripture stands for itself, and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the abolitionists in the world.

Before closing this communication, I beg leave to drop a word to the travelling elders: You know, brethren, that great responsibility rests upon you, and that you are accountable to God for all you teach the world. In my opinion, you will do well to search the book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the church concerning masters and servants. All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted: and then, teach the master to use them with kindness, remembering that they are accountable to God, and that servants are bound to serve their masters, with singleness of heart, without murmuring. I do, most sincerely hope, that no one who is authorized from this church to preach the gospel, will so far depart from the scripture as to be found stirring up strife and sedition against our brethren of the South. Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.

Praying that God may spare you to do much good in this life, I subscribe myself your brother in the Lord.

JOSEPH SMITH, jr.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ril-1836/1

The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience over the boundary of the United States, wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; several of the Lamanites or Indians—representative of Shem; quite a respectable number of negroes—descendants of Ham; and the balance was made up of citizens of the surrounding country, and fully represented themselves as pioneers of the West. At this meeting two were baptized, who had previously believed in the fulness of the Gospel.

History of the Church 1:191

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... t-1834/135

In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.

History of the Church 4:502

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... er-1842/14

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species

History of the Church 5:218

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1843/2

court trial on 2 negroes trying to marry white women fined 1— $25,00. & 1 $5.00

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... y-1844/265

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:12 (This was included in the 1835 edition, too.)

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

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1838/11

the South (they being incumbered with that unfortunate race of beings the negroes)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1844/7

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically.

History of the Church 5:217-218

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1843/2

There is another character, who has figured somewhat in the affairs of granny Parrish. Doctor Warren A. Cowdery. This poor pitiful beggar, came to Kirtland a few years since, with a large family, nearly naked and destitute. It was really painful to see this pious Doctor’s (for such he professed to be) rags flying when he walked the streets. He was taken in by us in this pitiful condition, and we put him into the printing office, and gave him enormous wages, not because he could earn it, or because we needed his service, but merely out of pity. We knew the man’s incompetency all the time, and his ignorance, and inability to fill any place in the literary world, with credit to himself, or to his employers. But notwithstanding all this, out of pure compassion, we gave him a place, and afterwards hired him to edit the paper in that place, and gave him double as much, as he could have gotten any where else. The subscribers, many at least, complained to us of his inability to edit the paper, and there was much dissatisfaction about it, but still we retained him in our employ, merely, that he might not have to be supported as a pauper.

By our means, he got himself and family decently clothed, and got supplied with all the comforts of life, and it was nothing more nor less, than supporting himself and family as paupers; for his services were actually, not worth one cent to us, but on the contrary was an injury. The owners of the establishment, could have done all the work which, he did themselves, just as well without him as with him. In reality, it was a piece of pauperism.

But now reader mark the sequel. It is a fact of public notoriety, that as soon as he found himself and family in possession of decent apparel he began to use all his influence to our injury, both in his sayings and doings. We have often heard it remarked by slave holders, that you should not make a negro equal with you, or he would try to walk over you. We have found the saying verified in this pious Doctor, for truly this niggardly spirit manifested itself in all its meanness; even in his writings, (and they were very mean at best) he threw out foul insinuations, which no man who had one particle of noble feeling would have condescended to. But such was the conduct of this master of meanness. Nor was this niggardly course confined to himself, but his sons also, were found engaged in the same mean business.

His sons, in violation of every sacred obligation, were found among the number of granny Parrish’s men, using all there influence (which however was nothing; but they were none the less guilty for that, for if it had been ever so great it would have been used) to destroy the benefactors of their family, who raised their family from rags, poverty, and wretchedness. One thing we have learned, that there are negroes who were white skins, as well as those who wear black ones.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... st-1838/11

[LDS Watchman]

Show me the sources about what Joseph said. I want links or references that can be found.

BTW, these sources better be something that was shared publicly while he was alive. Show me where he taught this to the saints and it was recorded as doctrine. I don't want any of this funny business of years or decades later, and in some altered church history record.

It's going to hard to find them, because the things he is quoting you came from Brigham. This is yet another example of let's "dirty up" Joseph.

I can show you quotes from Brigham that will curl your hair. Absolutely horrendous racist comments...but the Watchman doesn't mention Brigham...he mentions Joseph...ask yourself why?

From the corporation standpoint, it's better to throw Joseph under the bus (and they have) than Brigham. They feel if they "dirty up" Joseph, then it's just the way it's always been...warts and all.

But if they tell the truth about Brigham...then the ENTIRE succession comes into question, the entire line of authority comes into question, practicing polygamy at all comes into question, the ENTIRE church comes into question...basically to many members asking pesky questions...period.

So Joseph was selected to go under the bus.

You're once again demonstrating your lack of knowledge regarding church history, just like you were unaware of what Joseph actually said regarding the authority of the twelve apostles. I don't say that to belittle you, I just really hope that you are willing to reevaluate your position regarding Brigham Young and the church post Joseph Smith once you have more of the facts about what Joseph actually taught and did.

The church actually is currently throwing Brigham under the bus to take the heat off of Joseph. That's how offensive the statements Joseph made are in the 21st century. Stay tuned. I will have the statements from Joseph Smith along shortly(and know they're not from Brigham and Brigham didn't alter them, either).

Great..

Wait until you see the quotes from Brigham.

And just how specifically is the church throwing Brigham under the bus??? I haven't seen any of this.

And, I explained in an earlier post that the apostles had no authority to recieve revelation for the church...just themselves and their calling...kinda like ALL of us today. So...your victory lap is a bit premature.

It's Joseph with the tire tracks on his back.

I'm very familiar with every quote Brigham ever made about blacks. Read the statements by Joseph Smith. They were both saying essentially the same thing. The only difference is that Brigham was more outspoken about it and used stronger language for effect. He was the king of hyperbole.

Read the church's race and the priesthood essay. The ban and teachings on blacks and the curse of Cain are all attributed to Brigham Young and his successors. There's zero mention of what Joseph taught and did.

[Luke]

As long as the source material was public and recorded while Joseph was alive. None of these 132 shenanigans or past recollections. These need to be statements that were public and Joseph could have had the opportunity to either reject or validate the authenticity.

Okay, you got it. I'll dig them up.

Sounds good. Also, I won’t defend Joseph if I think the statements are wrong.

Fair enough. I don't expect you to defend Joseph if you think his statements are wrong. But I do expect you to hold him to the same standard as Brigham Young and not give him a free pass for his statements that are extremely racist by 21st century standards.

So without further ado, here you go:

Please read each statement carefully and don't just skim them and wave them away. The truth matters.

From the Messenger and Advocate

Brother Oliver Cowdery:

Dear Sir—This place having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called abolitionists; if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the southern public, relative to the views and sentiments I believe, as an individual, and am able to say, from personal knowledge, are the feelings of others, you are at liberty to give them publicity in the columns of the Advocate. I am prompted to this course in consequence, in one respect, of many elders having gone into the Southern States, besides, there now being many in that country who have already embraced the fulness of the gospel, as revealed through the book of Mormon,—having learned, by experience, that the enemy of truth does not slumber, nor cease his exertions to bias the minds of communities against the servants of the Lord, by stiring up the indignation of men upon all matters of importance or interest.

Thinking, perhaps, that the sound might go out, that “an abolitionist” had held forth several times to this community, and that the public feeling was not aroused to create mobs or disturbances, leaving the impression that all he said was concurred in, and received as gospel and the word of salvation. I am happy to say, that no violence or breach of the public peace was attempted, so far from this, that all except a very few, attended to their own avocations and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls.

I am aware, that many who profess to preach the gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the south, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflection of all men, and especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair States of the South, and set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue.

No one will pretend to say, that the people of the free states are as capable of knowing the evils of slavery as those who hold them. If slavery is an evil, who, could we expect, would first learn it? Would the people of the free states, or would the slave states? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact. If the fact was learned first by those immediately concerned, who would be more capable than they of prescribing a remedy?

And besides, are not those who hold slaves, persons of ability, discernment and candor? Do they not expect to give an account at the bar of God for their conduct in this life? It may, no doubt, with propriety be said, that many who hold slaves live without the fear of God before their eyes, and, the same may be said of many in the free states. Then who is to be the judge in this matter?

So long, then, as those of the free states are not interested in the freedom of the slaves, any other than upon the mere principles of equal rights and of the gospel, and are ready to admit that there are men of piety who reside in the South, who are immediately concerned, and until they complain, and call for assistance, why not cease their clamor, and no further urge the slave to acts of murder, and the master to vigorous discipline, rendering both miserable, and unprepared to pursue that course which might otherwise lead them both to better their condition? I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.

And further, what benefit will it ever be to the slave for persons to run over the free states, and excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands who understand nothing relative to their circumstances or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never travelled in the South, and scarcely seen a negro in all their life. How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons—boys and others who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me. And when I see persons in the free states signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an array of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South! What can divide our Union sooner, God only knows!

After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
“And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.— God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”—Gen, 8:25, 26, 27.

Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel.

I must not pass over a notice of the history of Abraham, of whom so much is spoken in the scriptures. If we can credit the account, God conversed with him from time to time, and directed him in the way he should walk, saying, “I am the Almighty God: walk before me and be thou perfect.” Paul says that the gospel was preached to this man. And it is further said, that he had sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants, &c. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to this holy man, he would have been instructed differently. And if he was instructed against holding men-servants and maid-servants, he never ceased to do it; consequently must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord and thereby lost his blessings—which was not the fact.

Some may urge, that the names, man-servant and maid-servant, only mean hired persons who were at liberty to leave their masters or employers at any time. But we can easily settle this point by turning to the history of Abraham’s descendants, when governed by a law given from the mouth of the Lord himself. I know that when an Israelite had been brought into servitude in consequence of debt, or otherwise, at the seventh year he went from the task of his former master or employer; but to no other people or nation was this granted in the law to Israel. And if, after a man had served six years, he did not wish to be free, then the master was to bring him unto the judges, boar his ear with an awl, and that man was “to serve him forever.” The conclusion I draw from this, is that this people were led and governed by revelation and if such a law was wrong God only is to be blamed, and abolitionists are not responsible.

Now, before proceeding any farther, I wish to ask one or two questions:—Were the apostles men of God, and did they preach the gospel? I have no doubt but those who believe the bible will admit these facts, and that they also knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote to the churches which they were instrumental in building up.

This being admitted, the matter can be put to rest without much argument, if we look at a few items in the New Testament. Paul says:
“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men-pleasers: but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart: With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” Eph. 6:5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Here is a lesson which might be profitable for all to learn, and the principle upon which the church was anciently governed, is so plainly set forth, that an eye of truth might see and understand. Here, certainly are represented the master and servant; and so far from instructions to the servant to leave his master, he is commanded to be in obedience, as unto the Lord: the master in turn is required to treat them with kindness before God, understanding at the same time that he is to give an account.— The hand of fellowship is not withdrawn from him in consequence of having servants.

The same writer, in his first epistle to Timothy, the sixth chapter, and the five first verses, says:

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren: but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness: he is proud, knowing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

This is so perfectly plain, that I see no need of comment. The scripture stands for itself, and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the abolitionists in the world.

Before closing this communication, I beg leave to drop a word to the travelling elders: You know, brethren, that great responsibility rests upon you, and that you are accountable to God for all you teach the world. In my opinion, you will do well to search the book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the church concerning masters and servants. All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted: and then, teach the master to use them with kindness, remembering that they are accountable to God, and that servants are bound to serve their masters, with singleness of heart, without murmuring. I do, most sincerely hope, that no one who is authorized from this church to preach the gospel, will so far depart from the scripture as to be found stirring up strife and sedition against our brethren of the South. Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.

Praying that God may spare you to do much good in this life, I subscribe myself your brother in the Lord.

JOSEPH SMITH, jr.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ril-1836/1

The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience over the boundary of the United States, wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; several of the Lamanites or Indians—representative of Shem; quite a respectable number of negroes—descendants of Ham; and the balance was made up of citizens of the surrounding country, and fully represented themselves as pioneers of the West. At this meeting two were baptized, who had previously believed in the fulness of the Gospel.

History of the Church 1:191

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... t-1834/135

In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.

History of the Church 4:502

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... er-1842/14

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species

History of the Church 5:218

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1843/2

court trial on 2 negroes trying to marry white women fined 1— $25,00. & 1 $5.00

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... y-1844/265

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:12 (This was included in the 1835 edition, too.)

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

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1838/11

the South (they being incumbered with that unfortunate race of beings the negroes)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1844/7

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically.

History of the Church 5:217-218

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1843/2

There is another character, who has figured somewhat in the affairs of granny Parrish. Doctor Warren A. Cowdery. This poor pitiful beggar, came to Kirtland a few years since, with a large family, nearly naked and destitute. It was really painful to see this pious Doctor’s (for such he professed to be) rags flying when he walked the streets. He was taken in by us in this pitiful condition, and we put him into the printing office, and gave him enormous wages, not because he could earn it, or because we needed his service, but merely out of pity. We knew the man’s incompetency all the time, and his ignorance, and inability to fill any place in the literary world, with credit to himself, or to his employers. But notwithstanding all this, out of pure compassion, we gave him a place, and afterwards hired him to edit the paper in that place, and gave him double as much, as he could have gotten any where else. The subscribers, many at least, complained to us of his inability to edit the paper, and there was much dissatisfaction about it, but still we retained him in our employ, merely, that he might not have to be supported as a pauper.

By our means, he got himself and family decently clothed, and got supplied with all the comforts of life, and it was nothing more nor less, than supporting himself and family as paupers; for his services were actually, not worth one cent to us, but on the contrary was an injury. The owners of the establishment, could have done all the work which, he did themselves, just as well without him as with him. In reality, it was a piece of pauperism.

But now reader mark the sequel. It is a fact of public notoriety, that as soon as he found himself and family in possession of decent apparel he began to use all his influence to our injury, both in his sayings and doings. We have often heard it remarked by slave holders, that you should not make a negro equal with you, or he would try to walk over you. We have found the saying verified in this pious Doctor, for truly this niggardly spirit manifested itself in all its meanness; even in his writings, (and they were very mean at best) he threw out foul insinuations, which no man who had one particle of noble feeling would have condescended to. But such was the conduct of this master of meanness. Nor was this niggardly course confined to himself, but his sons also, were found engaged in the same mean business.

His sons, in violation of every sacred obligation, were found among the number of granny Parrish’s men, using all there influence (which however was nothing; but they were none the less guilty for that, for if it had been ever so great it would have been used) to destroy the benefactors of their family, who raised their family from rags, poverty, and wretchedness. One thing we have learned, that there are negroes who were white skins, as well as those who wear black ones.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... st-1838/11

People with BY derangement syndrome will literally never hold JS and BY to the same standard (even though I have no doubt JS would expect them to out of pure principle alone) because they hate the man. Whatever standard you present they will perform outlandish mental acrobatics to ignore what you’re saying. It’s literally pure hatred for BY and nothing else. Expect no consistency from them.

I am proud to say that I am entirely consistent. If anyone can show me where I haven’t been consistent, then I will alter my understanding.

[LDS Watchman]

Okay, you got it. I'll dig them up.

Sounds good. Also, I won’t defend Joseph if I think the statements are wrong.

Fair enough. I don't expect you to defend Joseph if you think his statements are wrong. But I do expect you to hold him to the same standard as Brigham Young and not give him a free pass for his statements that are extremely racist by 21st century standards.

So without further ado, here you go:

Please read each statement carefully and don't just skim them and wave them away. The truth matters.

From the Messenger and Advocate

Brother Oliver Cowdery:

Dear Sir—This place having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called abolitionists; if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the southern public, relative to the views and sentiments I believe, as an individual, and am able to say, from personal knowledge, are the feelings of others, you are at liberty to give them publicity in the columns of the Advocate. I am prompted to this course in consequence, in one respect, of many elders having gone into the Southern States, besides, there now being many in that country who have already embraced the fulness of the gospel, as revealed through the book of Mormon,—having learned, by experience, that the enemy of truth does not slumber, nor cease his exertions to bias the minds of communities against the servants of the Lord, by stiring up the indignation of men upon all matters of importance or interest.

Thinking, perhaps, that the sound might go out, that “an abolitionist” had held forth several times to this community, and that the public feeling was not aroused to create mobs or disturbances, leaving the impression that all he said was concurred in, and received as gospel and the word of salvation. I am happy to say, that no violence or breach of the public peace was attempted, so far from this, that all except a very few, attended to their own avocations and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls.

I am aware, that many who profess to preach the gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the south, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflection of all men, and especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair States of the South, and set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue.

No one will pretend to say, that the people of the free states are as capable of knowing the evils of slavery as those who hold them. If slavery is an evil, who, could we expect, would first learn it? Would the people of the free states, or would the slave states? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact. If the fact was learned first by those immediately concerned, who would be more capable than they of prescribing a remedy?

And besides, are not those who hold slaves, persons of ability, discernment and candor? Do they not expect to give an account at the bar of God for their conduct in this life? It may, no doubt, with propriety be said, that many who hold slaves live without the fear of God before their eyes, and, the same may be said of many in the free states. Then who is to be the judge in this matter?

So long, then, as those of the free states are not interested in the freedom of the slaves, any other than upon the mere principles of equal rights and of the gospel, and are ready to admit that there are men of piety who reside in the South, who are immediately concerned, and until they complain, and call for assistance, why not cease their clamor, and no further urge the slave to acts of murder, and the master to vigorous discipline, rendering both miserable, and unprepared to pursue that course which might otherwise lead them both to better their condition? I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.

And further, what benefit will it ever be to the slave for persons to run over the free states, and excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands who understand nothing relative to their circumstances or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never travelled in the South, and scarcely seen a negro in all their life. How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons—boys and others who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me. And when I see persons in the free states signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an array of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South! What can divide our Union sooner, God only knows!

After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
“And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.— God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”—Gen, 8:25, 26, 27.

Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel.

I must not pass over a notice of the history of Abraham, of whom so much is spoken in the scriptures. If we can credit the account, God conversed with him from time to time, and directed him in the way he should walk, saying, “I am the Almighty God: walk before me and be thou perfect.” Paul says that the gospel was preached to this man. And it is further said, that he had sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants, &c. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to this holy man, he would have been instructed differently. And if he was instructed against holding men-servants and maid-servants, he never ceased to do it; consequently must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord and thereby lost his blessings—which was not the fact.

Some may urge, that the names, man-servant and maid-servant, only mean hired persons who were at liberty to leave their masters or employers at any time. But we can easily settle this point by turning to the history of Abraham’s descendants, when governed by a law given from the mouth of the Lord himself. I know that when an Israelite had been brought into servitude in consequence of debt, or otherwise, at the seventh year he went from the task of his former master or employer; but to no other people or nation was this granted in the law to Israel. And if, after a man had served six years, he did not wish to be free, then the master was to bring him unto the judges, boar his ear with an awl, and that man was “to serve him forever.” The conclusion I draw from this, is that this people were led and governed by revelation and if such a law was wrong God only is to be blamed, and abolitionists are not responsible.

Now, before proceeding any farther, I wish to ask one or two questions:—Were the apostles men of God, and did they preach the gospel? I have no doubt but those who believe the bible will admit these facts, and that they also knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote to the churches which they were instrumental in building up.

This being admitted, the matter can be put to rest without much argument, if we look at a few items in the New Testament. Paul says:
“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men-pleasers: but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart: With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” Eph. 6:5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Here is a lesson which might be profitable for all to learn, and the principle upon which the church was anciently governed, is so plainly set forth, that an eye of truth might see and understand. Here, certainly are represented the master and servant; and so far from instructions to the servant to leave his master, he is commanded to be in obedience, as unto the Lord: the master in turn is required to treat them with kindness before God, understanding at the same time that he is to give an account.— The hand of fellowship is not withdrawn from him in consequence of having servants.

The same writer, in his first epistle to Timothy, the sixth chapter, and the five first verses, says:

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren: but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness: he is proud, knowing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

This is so perfectly plain, that I see no need of comment. The scripture stands for itself, and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the abolitionists in the world.

Before closing this communication, I beg leave to drop a word to the travelling elders: You know, brethren, that great responsibility rests upon you, and that you are accountable to God for all you teach the world. In my opinion, you will do well to search the book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the church concerning masters and servants. All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted: and then, teach the master to use them with kindness, remembering that they are accountable to God, and that servants are bound to serve their masters, with singleness of heart, without murmuring. I do, most sincerely hope, that no one who is authorized from this church to preach the gospel, will so far depart from the scripture as to be found stirring up strife and sedition against our brethren of the South. Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.

Praying that God may spare you to do much good in this life, I subscribe myself your brother in the Lord.

JOSEPH SMITH, jr.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ril-1836/1

The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience over the boundary of the United States, wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; several of the Lamanites or Indians—representative of Shem; quite a respectable number of negroes—descendants of Ham; and the balance was made up of citizens of the surrounding country, and fully represented themselves as pioneers of the West. At this meeting two were baptized, who had previously believed in the fulness of the Gospel.

History of the Church 1:191

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... t-1834/135

In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.

History of the Church 4:502

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... er-1842/14

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species

History of the Church 5:218

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1843/2

court trial on 2 negroes trying to marry white women fined 1— $25,00. & 1 $5.00

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... y-1844/265

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:12 (This was included in the 1835 edition, too.)

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

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1838/11

the South (they being incumbered with that unfortunate race of beings the negroes)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1844/7

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically.

History of the Church 5:217-218

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1843/2

There is another character, who has figured somewhat in the affairs of granny Parrish. Doctor Warren A. Cowdery. This poor pitiful beggar, came to Kirtland a few years since, with a large family, nearly naked and destitute. It was really painful to see this pious Doctor’s (for such he professed to be) rags flying when he walked the streets. He was taken in by us in this pitiful condition, and we put him into the printing office, and gave him enormous wages, not because he could earn it, or because we needed his service, but merely out of pity. We knew the man’s incompetency all the time, and his ignorance, and inability to fill any place in the literary world, with credit to himself, or to his employers. But notwithstanding all this, out of pure compassion, we gave him a place, and afterwards hired him to edit the paper in that place, and gave him double as much, as he could have gotten any where else. The subscribers, many at least, complained to us of his inability to edit the paper, and there was much dissatisfaction about it, but still we retained him in our employ, merely, that he might not have to be supported as a pauper.

By our means, he got himself and family decently clothed, and got supplied with all the comforts of life, and it was nothing more nor less, than supporting himself and family as paupers; for his services were actually, not worth one cent to us, but on the contrary was an injury. The owners of the establishment, could have done all the work which, he did themselves, just as well without him as with him. In reality, it was a piece of pauperism.

But now reader mark the sequel. It is a fact of public notoriety, that as soon as he found himself and family in possession of decent apparel he began to use all his influence to our injury, both in his sayings and doings. We have often heard it remarked by slave holders, that you should not make a negro equal with you, or he would try to walk over you. We have found the saying verified in this pious Doctor, for truly this niggardly spirit manifested itself in all its meanness; even in his writings, (and they were very mean at best) he threw out foul insinuations, which no man who had one particle of noble feeling would have condescended to. But such was the conduct of this master of meanness. Nor was this niggardly course confined to himself, but his sons also, were found engaged in the same mean business.

His sons, in violation of every sacred obligation, were found among the number of granny Parrish’s men, using all there influence (which however was nothing; but they were none the less guilty for that, for if it had been ever so great it would have been used) to destroy the benefactors of their family, who raised their family from rags, poverty, and wretchedness. One thing we have learned, that there are negroes who were white skins, as well as those who wear black ones.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... st-1838/11

People with BY derangement syndrome will literally never hold JS and BY to the same standard (even though I have no doubt JS would expect them to out of pure principle alone) because they hate the man. Whatever standard you present they will perform outlandish mental acrobatics to ignore what you’re saying. It’s literally pure hatred for BY and nothing else. Expect no consistency from them.

I am proud to say that I am entirely consistent. If anyone can show me where I haven’t been consistent, then I will alter my understanding.

Yeah, Brigham Young derangement syndrome is a real thing, and I expect those who hate Brigham to do just as you just described with these statements by Joseph Smith. I do hope I'm wrong and they decide to be consistent and either ease up on Brigham's "racism" or throw Joseph under the same bus.

Don't forget that you once suffered from Brigham Young derangement syndrome for a time, too, and had to be snapped out of it. I got banned the first time trying to snap you out of it. But I'm glad you finally came around. I'm still holding out hope that you'll eventually accept Brigham's teachings on the priesthood, too.

[Serragon]

Why do you keep dodging the question. I'm asking about what Joseph said about blacks. This can all be verified as having come from him.

I'll ask again. And please answer the questions this time.

So do you think Joseph Smith was wrong about what he said about blacks? Was he lying? Was he a racist biggot? What is a concerned member today supposed to do with that information. I mean you literally have the prophet of the restoration telling people repeatedly that blacks are supposed to be slaves because their under a curse of God and that it's wrong to try and abolish slavery.

Who in the 21st century is okay with that?

Do you see why it might be prudent for the church to try and keep these statements under wraps because people cannot handle the truth?

Show me the sources about what Joseph said. I want links or references that can be found.

BTW, these sources better be something that was shared publicly while he was alive. Show me where he taught this to the saints and it was recorded as doctrine. I don't want any of this funny business of years or decades later, and in some altered church history record.

It's going to hard to find them, because the things he is quoting you came from Brigham. This is yet another example of let's "dirty up" Joseph.

I can show you quotes from Brigham that will curl your hair. Absolutely horrendous racist comments...but the Watchman doesn't mention Brigham...he mentions Joseph...ask yourself why?

From the corporation standpoint, it's better to throw Joseph under the bus (and they have) than Brigham. They feel if they "dirty up" Joseph, then it's just the way it's always been...warts and all.

But if they tell the truth about Brigham...then the ENTIRE succession comes into question, the entire line of authority comes into question, practicing polygamy at all comes into question, the ENTIRE church comes into question...basically to many members asking pesky questions...period.

So Joseph was selected to go under the bus.

No, my hair won't curl. I am an adult and have an understanding of history. I am not a child who has been breast-fed on modern sensibilities and use them to accuse and condemn people from the past.

The idea of racism is fairly new. The word has only been in use for 100 years or so. The ideas preceding its creation are a bit older than that, though even most of those people espousing ides of equality and desegregation still believed in separation of the races when it came to class and family. Most of the world are still blatant racists. The only place this idea that tribe and/race don't really matter is with a few conservatives and liberals in the west. Much of the west, including progressives an minority communities, still cling to racist ideology.

People all through history have been tribalists. Brigham and his peers were no different. The fact that the black african slaves were easy to identify by their skin color and that they were kept in an uneducated and ignorant state didn't help things, as they validated the stereotypes. But it really was just the same old tribalism that had always existed.

But in addition to that, it turns out that by todays standards God Himself is quite racist. He picks and chooses tribes to be favored people. He destroys tribes that get in His people's way. He changes skin color of unfavored people and tells His people not to mix with them. He curses multiple generations for behavior of their ancestors. He calls people from other tribes dogs. The priesthood He uses to govern the Celestial Kingdom is based on tribal affiliation. He refuses at times to let His Gospel be preached to those of the other tribes. Though He is no respecter of persons (meaning all have access to the atonement), he definately plays favorites, and often those favorites are along genetic and tribal lines.

So although I don't agree with Brigham's conclusions about race and the priesthood, I certainly understand how and why he might feel justified in those ideas. And I also understand that any finger I point at Brigham regarding his views on race and tribe can also be pointed at God Himself, and I choose not to do that.

The idea that racism is the pinnacle of sin is a new concept, created by the world. I find racism to be ignorant and distasteful, but I don't elevate it to the pinnacle of all unrighteousness and have my hair curl because i have been taught by the world to overreact to the opinions and ideas that would have been considered normal by almost everyone throughout history.

[Reluctant Watchman]

For the record, I don’t care who said what when. I hold all men to the same standard. Prove your words in the scriptures and by the Holy Ghost. That’s the standard. I don’t hold Joseph in any higher regard than any other man. But I’ll be damned if I let Joseph be thrown under the bus and slandered like the LDS church has done to him.

LDSW, thanks for the references. I’ll check them out this weekend. I will be honest with you though, the history of the church records do not count. Brigham is on record as having altered these accounts. Do you remember my criteria for accuracy w/ quotes from Joseph? On record, in public, while he was alive. The History of the Church does not count. It was written well after Joseph was murdered, by his friends btw.

[The Red Pill]

I see the Brigham apologists are trying to soften the beachhead, by wrongly asserting that Joseph was just as bad as Brigham...not close to being true.

Brigham HATED blacks and it shows in his writings. He didn't just ban them from the priesthood

[LDS Watchman]

For the record, I don’t care who said what when. I hold all men to the same standard. Prove your words in the scriptures and by the Holy Ghost. That’s the standard. I don’t hold Joseph in any higher regard than any other man. But I’ll be damned if I let Joseph be thrown under the bus and slandered like the LDS church has done to him.

LDSW, thanks for the references. I’ll check them out this weekend. I will be honest with you though, the history of the church records do not count. Brigham is on record as having altered these accounts. Do you remember my criteria for accuracy w/ quotes from Joseph? On record, in public, while he was alive. The History of the Church does not count. It was written well after Joseph was murdered, by his friends btw.

For each history of the church references I also included a link to the original primary sources. So don't worry, they all count.

[LDS Watchman]

I see the Brigham apologists are trying to soften the beachhead, by wrongly asserting that Joseph was just as bad as Brigham...not close to being true.

Brigham HATED blacks and it shows in his writings. He didn't just ban them from the priesthood

Luke nailed it with the Brigham Young derangement syndrome prediction. Absolutely no comment on what Joseph said. It's like he never said any of that. But of course Brigham just hated blacks. Lol. You can't make this stuff up.

If you're going to say that Brigham hated blacks, let's have the quotes where he says he hated them.

[The Red Pill]

A small sampling of quotes on various subjects by Brigham. Read them slowly and carefully. He trashes monogamy, he sets up a system to use his power...to get additional wives. He extends his racism beyond the church, he doesn't want black's in any civic role either. His blood atonement is just spooky and evil.

Ask yourself...is this what a man of God sounds like??

Direct Quotes from Brigham Young:


On the Blood Atonement:

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from this earth, that you consider it a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.”

“I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood…I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins…It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit”

Discourse by Brigham Young, Delivered in the Bowrey, Salt Lake City, September 21, 1856

On Polygamy

“Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” (trashing traditional marriage)

Brigham Young, Deseret News, vol. 12, no.6, 1862


“If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is…there is no need for a bill of divorcement.” (A little self serving, even for Brigham)

Brigham Young, Tabernacle October 8th 1861


“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him” (I don't recall this version in the scriptures)

Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, July 11, 1852, Journal of Discourses 1:51

On No Blacks in the Priesthood

“Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood”

“I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood”

Brigham Young, Joint Session of Legislature, Feb 5th 1852


Brigham Just Being a Racist

"Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?

Brigham Young, Joint Session of the Legislature, Feb 5th 1852

[4Joshua8]

A small sampling of quotes on various subjects by Brigham. Read them slowly and carefully. He trashes monogamy, he sets up a system to use his power...to get additional wives. He extends his racism beyond the church, he doesn't want black's in any civic role either. His blood atonement is just spooky and evil.

Ask yourself...is this what a man of God sounds like??

Direct Quotes from Brigham Young:


On the Blood Atonement:

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from this earth, that you consider it a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.”

“I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood…I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins…It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit”

Discourse by Brigham Young, Delivered in the Bowrey, Salt Lake City, September 21, 1856

On Polygamy

“Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” (trashing traditional marriage)

Brigham Young, Deseret News, vol. 12, no.6, 1862


“If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is…there is no need for a bill of divorcement.” (A little self serving, even for Brigham)

Brigham Young, Tabernacle October 8th 1861


“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him” (I don't recall this version in the scriptures)

Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, July 11, 1852, Journal of Discourses 1:51

On No Blacks in the Priesthood

“Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood”

“I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood”

Brigham Young, Joint Session of Legislature, Feb 5th 1852


Brigham Just Being a Racist

"Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?

Brigham Young, Joint Session of the Legislature, Feb 5th 1852

Regardless of whether Brigham’s words here are true or false, they certainly are proof positive that the leaders of the church can lead us astray.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I see the Brigham apologists are trying to soften the beachhead, by wrongly asserting that Joseph was just as bad as Brigham...not close to being true.

Brigham HATED blacks and it shows in his writings. He didn't just ban them from the priesthood

Luke nailed it with the Brigham Young derangement syndrome prediction. Absolutely no comment on what Joseph said. It's like he never said any of that. But of course Brigham just hated blacks. Lol. You can't make this stuff up.

If you're going to say that Brigham hated blacks, let's have the quotes where he says he hated them.

I'm going through the quotes. I did noticed that several are quite incomplete. Some of them are simply historical statements to the day and culture.

I'm trying to understand why this topic is even applicable to the current leadership.

[LDS Watchman]

I see the Brigham apologists are trying to soften the beachhead, by wrongly asserting that Joseph was just as bad as Brigham...not close to being true.

Brigham HATED blacks and it shows in his writings. He didn't just ban them from the priesthood

Luke nailed it with the Brigham Young derangement syndrome prediction. Absolutely no comment on what Joseph said. It's like he never said any of that. But of course Brigham just hated blacks. Lol. You can't make this stuff up.

If you're going to say that Brigham hated blacks, let's have the quotes where he says he hated them.

I'm going through the quotes. I did noticed that several are quite incomplete. Some of them are simply historical statements to the day and culture.

I'm trying to understand why this topic is even applicable to the current leadership.

Some of the quotes are excerpts. Just click on the links to read the full quotes.

These statements by Joseph Smith matter for several reasons. One is in regards to transparency. When a member today is struggling with the priesthood ban and past "racism" should the church give them these quotes from Joseph or keep these quotes quiet and focus on the inclusion and anti-racism in the church today?

Should the church apologize for these past "racist" statements by Joseph Smith? Should the church throw him under the bus? Or should the church defend him and turn even more people away?

Not an easy answer is it?

Another reason it matters is in regards to Brigham Young and the accusation that he was the author of "racism" in the church, when these statements clearly show that Joseph obviously believed and taught essentially the same thing Brigham did.

[LDS Watchman]

On No Blacks in the Priesthood

“Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood”

There are affidavits by witnesses who knew Joseph Smith which state that Joseph Smith taught the same thing.

There's also Abraham 1, which came directly from Joseph Smith and was printed while he was alive:

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

“I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood”

Brigham Young, Joint Session of Legislature, Feb 5th 1852

Joseph Smith also said that negroes were sons of Cain in one of the quotes I provided. Additionally he gave us Moses 7, which says:

8 ...there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Brigham Just Being a Racist

"Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?

Brigham Young, Joint Session of the Legislature, Feb 5th 1852

Read what Joseph Smith said again. He would have agreed with this for sure.

He also said that the apostates in Kirtland, like Warren Parrish, were as ungrateful and wicked as n*ggers who had turned on their slave masters.

Which statement would be considered more racist and offensive to black person today, Brigham's or Joseph's?

[The Red Pill]

On No Blacks in the Priesthood

“Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood”

There are affidavits by witnesses who knew Joseph Smith which state that Joseph Smith taught the same thing.

There's also Abraham 1, which came directly from Joseph Smith and was printed while he was alive:

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

“I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood”

Brigham Young, Joint Session of Legislature, Feb 5th 1852

Joseph Smith also said that negroes were sons of Cain in one of the quotes I provided. Additionally he gave us Moses 7, which says:

8 ...there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Brigham Just Being a Racist

"Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?

Brigham Young, Joint Session of the Legislature, Feb 5th 1852

Read what Joseph Smith said again. He would have agreed with this for sure.

He also said that the apostates in Kirtland, like Warren Parrish, were as ungrateful and wicked as n*ggers who had turned on their slave masters.

Which statement would be considered more racist and offensive to black person today, Brigham's or Joseph's?

Affidavits?????

Joseph would have said that for sure??????


Watchman, you should know better than that. If Joseph didn't say it directly...you don't have anything...

Show me one sentence Brigham offered in his lifetime praising blacks.

[LDS Watchman]

Affidavits?????

Joseph would have said that for sure??????


Watchman, you should know better than that. If Joseph didn't say it directly...you don't have anything...

Are you serious? I've quoted Joseph over and over again. But yeah go ahead and ignore all that and focus on me mentioning affidavits and pointing back to Joseph's actual statements which show that he absolutely wouldn't have been in favor of blacks ruling over him. He literally said that God had decreed that they be slaves.

Are you going to address the statements by Joseph Smith or are you just going to pretend they don't exist?

Show me one sentence Brigham offered in his lifetime praising blacks.

Sure, here's one:

"we [h]av[e] one of the best Elders[,] an African in Lowell—a barber.”

Historian’s Office, General Church Minutes, 1839-1877, 26 March 1847, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[Shawn Henry]

Look! A prophet! Was this at conference? Is he new?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1jrP91BrD ... e=youtu.be

Nice find Mamabear! I love it!

[BenMcCrea]

I see the Brigham apologists are trying to soften the beachhead, by wrongly asserting that Joseph was just as bad as Brigham...not close to being true.

Brigham HATED blacks and it shows in his writings. He didn't just ban them from the priesthood

So do you believe that Brigham Young wrote the Book of Abraham?

[BeNotDeceived]

Again, Joseph Smith had the entire FP and Q12 sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Which I believe was strictly because of their callings and their testimonies, not because they all met the requirements disgruntled people on LDSFF insist they must meet so they can write them off as false prophets and ignore all the good they do.

Did you not get the memo about the church being condemned?

Pious Fraud, GAPii, 38ii and 57ii are 4 keyword combinations that may enlighten those capable of enlightenment.