Blacks and racism, church transparency

[LDS Watchman]

What are we not understanding about the words "past or present"?

He condemned all racism past or present. He didn't explain what he meant by racism.

He also didn't say that at no point in the past was darkened skin EVER a sign of a curse.

Again, his statement was carefully worded and didn't actually disavow the teachings in the Book of Mormon.

[Jashon]

I guess it hinges on what the meaning of is is. LOL

[Jashon]

Look, GES said that JFS's statement was an error. That's highly problematic, because all JFS did was give a plain and reasonable interpretation of the text. So it can even be concluded that GES and RMN think the Book of Mormon text is in error in a number of places on this point.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Look, GES said that JFS's statement was an error. That's highly problematic, because all JFS did was give a plain and reasonable interpretation of the text. So it can even be concluded that GES and RMN think the Book of Mormon text is in error in a number of places on this point.

Can you define “error”?

[LDS Watchman]

I guess it hinges on what the meaning of is is. LOL

Is is present tense. Was is past tense.

In any event he never directly said that the teachings in the Book of Mormon were false. But people are free to interpret what he said that way if they want to. And I think that was by design.

[LDS Watchman]

Look, GES said that JFS's statement was an error. That's highly problematic, because all JFS did was give a plain and reasonable interpretation of the text. So it can even be concluded that GES and RMN think the Book of Mormon text is in error in a number of places on this point.

Did he actually say that what JFS said is an error or false?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Please define “directly”…

[LDS Watchman]

Please define “directly”…

Still playing the same old games I see.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I guess what I want to know is why Brigham was so pro slavery. I mean, that had nothing to do with priesthood, ordinations, etc. That should be a clear distinction between Joseph and Brigham.

[LDS Watchman]

I guess what I want to know is why Brigham was so pro slavery. I mean, that had nothing to do with priesthood, ordinations, etc. That should be a clear distinction between Joseph and Brigham.

I don't see the clear distinction you are claiming.

Brigham appears to have believed essentially the same thing about it that Joseph taught in the letter in the M&A. Both men believed that the Bible supported it and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants."

Like Joseph he also taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I guess what I want to know is why Brigham was so pro slavery. I mean, that had nothing to do with priesthood, ordinations, etc. That should be a clear distinction between Joseph and Brigham.

I don't see the clear distinction you are claiming.

Brigham appears to have believed essentially the same thing about it that Joseph taught in the letter in the M&A. Both men believed that the Bible supported it and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants."

Like Joseph he also taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

You need to read the quote from Joseph again. He said nothing of the sort. You also need to read what Brigham said.

[LDS Watchman]

I guess what I want to know is why Brigham was so pro slavery. I mean, that had nothing to do with priesthood, ordinations, etc. That should be a clear distinction between Joseph and Brigham.

I don't see the clear distinction you are claiming.

Brigham appears to have believed essentially the same thing about it that Joseph taught in the letter in the M&A. Both men believed that the Bible supported it and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants."

Like Joseph he also taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

You need to read the quote from Joseph again. He said nothing of the sort. You also need to read what Brigham said.

I'm very familiar with what both men said.

Both men believed that the Bible supported slavery and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants." Both men taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I'm very familiar with what both men said.

Both men believed that the Bible supported slavery and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants." Both men taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

You are cherry-picking your quotes again.
Kind of like that GES quote.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm very familiar with what both men said.

Both men believed that the Bible supported slavery and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants." Both men taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

You are cherry-picking your quotes again.
Kind of like that GES quote.

Nope. I haven't cherry-picked any quotes.

I posted the entire letter from the M&A. I provided the full context. In fact I even added additional context. I also wasn't the one who brought up the isolated GES quote.

But nice try, though.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I'm very familiar with what both men said.

Both men believed that the Bible supported slavery and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants." Both men taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

You are cherry-picking your quotes again.
Kind of like that GES quote.

Nope. I haven't cherry-picked any quotes.

I posted the entire letter from the M&A. I provided the full context. In fact I even added additional context. I also wasn't the one who brought up the isolated GES quote.

But nice try, though.

I’m talking about the Brigham quotes. You haven’t even discussed a single one of his quotes.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm very familiar with what both men said.

Both men believed that the Bible supported slavery and that blacks were cursed to be the "servant of servants." Both men taught that masters should treat their bond-servants with kindness and dignity.

You are cherry-picking your quotes again.
Kind of like that GES quote.

Nope. I haven't cherry-picked any quotes.

I posted the entire letter from the M&A. I provided the full context. In fact I even added additional context. I also wasn't the one who brought up the isolated GES quote.

But nice try, though.

I’m talking about the Brigham quotes. You haven’t even discussed a single one of his quotes.

This thread is about what Joseph said, not Brigham. There's zero point in getting into what Brigham said until we fully address what Joseph said. Which we haven't. You still have yet to even acknowledge what Joseph said about the descendants of Cain/Canaan in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 for example.

But once we finish up with what Joseph taught, I'm more then happy to prove that Brigham taught exactly what I just said.

[Reluctant Watchman]

This thread is about what Joseph said, not Brigham. There's zero point in getting into what Brigham said until we fully address what Joseph said. Which we haven't. You still have yet to even acknowledge what Joseph said about the descendants of Cain/Canaan in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 for example.

But once we finish up with what Joseph taught, I'm more then happy to prove that Brigham taught exactly what I just said.

I’ve already discussed this point about Joseph and Cain. Moses 7 says that the descendants of Cain were black…. So what? Joseph said the Negros were descendants of Cain, also a commonly held belief of his day. I honestly don’t know where you are tying in Abraham 1 and the Canaanites to Joseph…

For any person to believe that a “curse” from the time of Cain still held any validity to our modern day and the black skin of a person is wrong. I don’t care how you want to slice it. The BoM is clear about that in 2 Nephi 26. Remember, “the most correct book…”

I am curious though how you claimed I hold Joseph to a different standard than subsequent church leaders. I’ve never stated that, I’ve never held that belief.

[LDS Watchman]

This thread is about what Joseph said, not Brigham. There's zero point in getting into what Brigham said until we fully address what Joseph said. Which we haven't. You still have yet to even acknowledge what Joseph said about the descendants of Cain/Canaan in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 for example.

But once we finish up with what Joseph taught, I'm more then happy to prove that Brigham taught exactly what I just said.

I’ve already discussed this point about Joseph and Cain. Moses 7 says that the descendants of Cain were black…. So what? Joseph said the Negros were descendants of Cain, also a commonly held belief of his day. I honestly don’t know where you are tying in Abraham 1 and the Canaanites to Joseph…

For any person to believe that a “curse” from the time of Cain still held any validity to our modern day and the black skin of a person is wrong. I don’t care how you want to slice it. The BoM is clear about that in 2 Nephi 26. Remember, “the most correct book…”

Okay, let's break this down.

Moses 7 and Abraham 1 says what it says about the curse put upon the descendants of Cain/Canaan, as do other scriptures in the Bible (which I'm happy to quote for you). Joseph Smith, the man who translated and published Moses 7 and Abraham as the word of God, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain/Canaan. If you don't think that matters I don't know what to tell you.

Your point about 2 Nephi 26 is also irrelevant and here's why. Clearly there was a time in the past when God cursed an entire race with black skin and denied them the priesthood, even if they were righteous, like the first Pharaoh was. Which means that 2 Nephi 26 doesn't prohibit God from putting curses on certain groups of people, including prohibiting them from the priesthood. Prohibiting someone from the priesthood and temple ordinances doesn't mean he denies them. They are still fully capable of having faith, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and obtaining salvation.

And if God could curse a race with black skin and deny them the priesthood anciently, there's absolutely no reason why this curse couldn't have continued to present times. There's zero problem with 2 Nephi 26.


On a side note, I want to address your post attempting to call Joseph's authorship of the letter from the M&A into question, which you quickly deleted.

It's obvious that Joseph was the author. It was published during his Presidency and he is listed as the author. He also expressed similar views at other times. It was definitely from him.

But you trying to call that into question shows that you are beginning to recognize the serious implications of what Joseph taught in it. So I think we may be making some progress.

[Reluctant Watchman]

This thread is about what Joseph said, not Brigham. There's zero point in getting into what Brigham said until we fully address what Joseph said. Which we haven't. You still have yet to even acknowledge what Joseph said about the descendants of Cain/Canaan in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 for example.

But once we finish up with what Joseph taught, I'm more then happy to prove that Brigham taught exactly what I just said.

I’ve already discussed this point about Joseph and Cain. Moses 7 says that the descendants of Cain were black…. So what? Joseph said the Negros were descendants of Cain, also a commonly held belief of his day. I honestly don’t know where you are tying in Abraham 1 and the Canaanites to Joseph…

For any person to believe that a “curse” from the time of Cain still held any validity to our modern day and the black skin of a person is wrong. I don’t care how you want to slice it. The BoM is clear about that in 2 Nephi 26. Remember, “the most correct book…”

Okay, let's break this down.

Moses 7 and Abraham 1 says what it says about the curse put upon the descendants of Cain/Canaan, as do other scriptures in the Bible (which I'm happy to quote for you). Joseph Smith, the man who translated and published Moses 7 and Abraham as the word of God, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain/Canaan. If you don't think that matters I don't know what to tell you.

Your point about 2 Nephi 26 is also irrelevant and here's why. Clearly there was a time in the past when God cursed an entire race with black skin and denied them the priesthood, even if they were righteous, like the first Pharaoh was. Which means that 2 Nephi 26 doesn't prohibit God from putting curses on certain groups of people, including prohibiting them from the priesthood. Prohibiting someone from the priesthood and temple ordinances doesn't mean he denies them. They are still fully capable of having faith, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and obtaining salvation.

And if God could curse a race with black skin and deny them the priesthood anciently, there's absolutely no reason why this curse couldn't have continued to present times. There's zero problem with 2 Nephi 26.


On a side note, I want to address your post attempting to call Joseph's authorship of the letter from the M&A into question, which you quickly deleted.

It's obvious that Joseph was the author. It was published during his Presidency and he is listed as the author. He also expressed similar views at other times. It was definitely from him.

But you trying to call that into question shows that you are beginning to recognize the serious implications of what Joseph taught in it. So I think we may be making some progress.

At this point I honestly don’t care what you are trying to get at. I’ll admit that much.

And yes, I was attempting to find the source for the letter. One of the footnotes made reference to an “unsolicited author”, yet it was for a different letter. Hence why I deleted the post because I answered my own question.

[Fred]

What are we not understanding about the words "past or present"?

He condemned all racism past or present. He didn't explain what he meant by racism.

He also didn't say that at no point in the past was darkened skin EVER a sign of a curse.

Again, his statement was carefully worded and didn't actually disavow the teachings in the Book of Mormon.

I wouldn't think that skin color is such a big deal. Likely not a curse, in and of itself. Physical features, on the other hand, vary only slightly among the races, except the blacks, which are dramatically different. I don't think this can be argued.

They were cursed. The Bible says so. But if they simply follow the same rules that all successful people follow, they will be successful, also.

To believe that an ancestor several generations ago being a slave is the reason for a current self perceived enslavement, is absurd. In today's world, black suppression only exists in the mind of the black. This is largely self imposed, or a result of parental conditioning. Referring to speaking correct English as being white, is simply stupid.

When I encounter a black that speaks as fluently as anyone else, I see a successful person that is not complaining about being treated unfairly.

I watched the 2019 sequel to "The Shining" the other day. I thought The Shining was the most evil movie I ever saw in 1979. But Steven King actually out did himself with "Doctor Sleep." Same movie set as The Shining. Anyway, the star is a young black girl. Perhaps 13. Clearly, her parents never taught her that she was trash and would have to live in a ghetto the rest of her life on welfare, dealing drugs. She speaks eloquently. One would never know she was black by speaking with her on the phone. She is a fine actress, well on her way to being a millionaire. This is what happens when a black completes school, learns to speak correctly, and disregards the notion that opportunities are not available.

[LDS Watchman]

This thread is about what Joseph said, not Brigham. There's zero point in getting into what Brigham said until we fully address what Joseph said. Which we haven't. You still have yet to even acknowledge what Joseph said about the descendants of Cain/Canaan in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 for example.

But once we finish up with what Joseph taught, I'm more then happy to prove that Brigham taught exactly what I just said.

I’ve already discussed this point about Joseph and Cain. Moses 7 says that the descendants of Cain were black…. So what? Joseph said the Negros were descendants of Cain, also a commonly held belief of his day. I honestly don’t know where you are tying in Abraham 1 and the Canaanites to Joseph…

For any person to believe that a “curse” from the time of Cain still held any validity to our modern day and the black skin of a person is wrong. I don’t care how you want to slice it. The BoM is clear about that in 2 Nephi 26. Remember, “the most correct book…”

Okay, let's break this down.

Moses 7 and Abraham 1 says what it says about the curse put upon the descendants of Cain/Canaan, as do other scriptures in the Bible (which I'm happy to quote for you). Joseph Smith, the man who translated and published Moses 7 and Abraham as the word of God, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain/Canaan. If you don't think that matters I don't know what to tell you.

Your point about 2 Nephi 26 is also irrelevant and here's why. Clearly there was a time in the past when God cursed an entire race with black skin and denied them the priesthood, even if they were righteous, like the first Pharaoh was. Which means that 2 Nephi 26 doesn't prohibit God from putting curses on certain groups of people, including prohibiting them from the priesthood. Prohibiting someone from the priesthood and temple ordinances doesn't mean he denies them. They are still fully capable of having faith, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and obtaining salvation.

And if God could curse a race with black skin and deny them the priesthood anciently, there's absolutely no reason why this curse couldn't have continued to present times. There's zero problem with 2 Nephi 26.


On a side note, I want to address your post attempting to call Joseph's authorship of the letter from the M&A into question, which you quickly deleted.

It's obvious that Joseph was the author. It was published during his Presidency and he is listed as the author. He also expressed similar views at other times. It was definitely from him.

But you trying to call that into question shows that you are beginning to recognize the serious implications of what Joseph taught in it. So I think we may be making some progress.

At this point I honestly don’t care what you are trying to get at. I’ll admit that much.

And yes, I was attempting to find the source for the letter. One of the footnotes made reference to an “unsolicited author”, yet it was for a different letter. Hence why I deleted the post because I answered my own question.

So you don't care to address what Joseph taught in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 about the descendants of Cain/Canaan and that he also identified blacks (negroes) as descendants of Cain/Canaan? Or the scriptures he broke down and interpreted in the letter in the M&A?

That's fine, but it's kind of a huge deal in understanding what really happened in the church in regards to "racism" towards blacks prior to 1978.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I’ve already discussed this point about Joseph and Cain. Moses 7 says that the descendants of Cain were black…. So what? Joseph said the Negros were descendants of Cain, also a commonly held belief of his day. I honestly don’t know where you are tying in Abraham 1 and the Canaanites to Joseph…

For any person to believe that a “curse” from the time of Cain still held any validity to our modern day and the black skin of a person is wrong. I don’t care how you want to slice it. The BoM is clear about that in 2 Nephi 26. Remember, “the most correct book…”

Okay, let's break this down.

Moses 7 and Abraham 1 says what it says about the curse put upon the descendants of Cain/Canaan, as do other scriptures in the Bible (which I'm happy to quote for you). Joseph Smith, the man who translated and published Moses 7 and Abraham as the word of God, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain/Canaan. If you don't think that matters I don't know what to tell you.

Your point about 2 Nephi 26 is also irrelevant and here's why. Clearly there was a time in the past when God cursed an entire race with black skin and denied them the priesthood, even if they were righteous, like the first Pharaoh was. Which means that 2 Nephi 26 doesn't prohibit God from putting curses on certain groups of people, including prohibiting them from the priesthood. Prohibiting someone from the priesthood and temple ordinances doesn't mean he denies them. They are still fully capable of having faith, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and obtaining salvation.

And if God could curse a race with black skin and deny them the priesthood anciently, there's absolutely no reason why this curse couldn't have continued to present times. There's zero problem with 2 Nephi 26.


On a side note, I want to address your post attempting to call Joseph's authorship of the letter from the M&A into question, which you quickly deleted.

It's obvious that Joseph was the author. It was published during his Presidency and he is listed as the author. He also expressed similar views at other times. It was definitely from him.

But you trying to call that into question shows that you are beginning to recognize the serious implications of what Joseph taught in it. So I think we may be making some progress.

At this point I honestly don’t care what you are trying to get at. I’ll admit that much.

And yes, I was attempting to find the source for the letter. One of the footnotes made reference to an “unsolicited author”, yet it was for a different letter. Hence why I deleted the post because I answered my own question.

So you don't care to address what Joseph taught in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 about the descendants of Cain/Canaan and that he also identified blacks (negroes) as descendants of Cain/Canaan? Or the scriptures he broke down and interpreted in the letter in the M&A?

That's fine, but it's kind of a huge deal in understanding what really happened in the church in regards to "racism" towards blacks prior to 1978.

I think Joseph jumped to some erroneous conclusions in the M&A letter. He was wrong IMO.

[LDS Watchman]

Okay, let's break this down.

Moses 7 and Abraham 1 says what it says about the curse put upon the descendants of Cain/Canaan, as do other scriptures in the Bible (which I'm happy to quote for you). Joseph Smith, the man who translated and published Moses 7 and Abraham as the word of God, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain/Canaan. If you don't think that matters I don't know what to tell you.

Your point about 2 Nephi 26 is also irrelevant and here's why. Clearly there was a time in the past when God cursed an entire race with black skin and denied them the priesthood, even if they were righteous, like the first Pharaoh was. Which means that 2 Nephi 26 doesn't prohibit God from putting curses on certain groups of people, including prohibiting them from the priesthood. Prohibiting someone from the priesthood and temple ordinances doesn't mean he denies them. They are still fully capable of having faith, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and obtaining salvation.

And if God could curse a race with black skin and deny them the priesthood anciently, there's absolutely no reason why this curse couldn't have continued to present times. There's zero problem with 2 Nephi 26.


On a side note, I want to address your post attempting to call Joseph's authorship of the letter from the M&A into question, which you quickly deleted.

It's obvious that Joseph was the author. It was published during his Presidency and he is listed as the author. He also expressed similar views at other times. It was definitely from him.

But you trying to call that into question shows that you are beginning to recognize the serious implications of what Joseph taught in it. So I think we may be making some progress.

At this point I honestly don’t care what you are trying to get at. I’ll admit that much.

And yes, I was attempting to find the source for the letter. One of the footnotes made reference to an “unsolicited author”, yet it was for a different letter. Hence why I deleted the post because I answered my own question.

So you don't care to address what Joseph taught in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 about the descendants of Cain/Canaan and that he also identified blacks (negroes) as descendants of Cain/Canaan? Or the scriptures he broke down and interpreted in the letter in the M&A?

That's fine, but it's kind of a huge deal in understanding what really happened in the church in regards to "racism" towards blacks prior to 1978.

I think Joseph jumped to some erroneous conclusions in the M&A letter. He was wrong IMO.

Okay, so if you think "Joseph jumped to some erroneous conclusions in the M&A letter," how would you interpret the scriptures he quoted in that letter?

And what about Moses 7 and Abraham 1? In your opinion, did he insert his own cultural racism into those translations he published as the word of God? Do you believe what it says about the descendants of Cain/Canaan in those two scriptures is wrong, too?

[Reluctant Watchman]

At this point I honestly don’t care what you are trying to get at. I’ll admit that much.

And yes, I was attempting to find the source for the letter. One of the footnotes made reference to an “unsolicited author”, yet it was for a different letter. Hence why I deleted the post because I answered my own question.

So you don't care to address what Joseph taught in Moses 7 and Abraham 1 about the descendants of Cain/Canaan and that he also identified blacks (negroes) as descendants of Cain/Canaan? Or the scriptures he broke down and interpreted in the letter in the M&A?

That's fine, but it's kind of a huge deal in understanding what really happened in the church in regards to "racism" towards blacks prior to 1978.

I think Joseph jumped to some erroneous conclusions in the M&A letter. He was wrong IMO.

Okay, so if you think "Joseph jumped to some erroneous conclusions in the M&A letter," how would you interpret the scriptures he quoted in that letter?

And what about Moses 7 and Abraham 1? In your opinion, did he insert his own cultural racism into those translations he published as the word of God? Do you believe what it says about the descendants of Cain/Canaan in those two scriptures is wrong, too?

I believe that God can curse people, but for the later-day church to feel this curse continued simply due to the color of their skin was wrong. I hope you can see the clear distinction of what happened in the Book of Mormon. The curse only remains a curse as part of their wickedness.

If you follow your line of thinking, and you believe the church was justified, then they are still in the wrong today.

[LDS Watchman]

I believe that God can curse people, but for the later-day church to feel this curse continued simply due to the color of their skin was wrong. I hope you can see the clear distinction of what happened in the Book of Mormon. The curse only remains a curse as part of their wickedness.

There are similarities between the curse put upon the descendants of Cain/Canaan and the one put upon the Lamanites, but it wasn't the same curse. It's always been taught that it was different. There's no mention of any kind of priesthood restriction or a curse to be the servant of servants for the Lamanites.

And in the case of the curse upon the descendants of Cain/Canaan, per Abraham 1 it had nothing to do with the righteousness or wickedness of the individual. The first Pharaoh was a righteous man and God blessed him through Noah with "the blessings of the earth," but "cursed him as pertaining the priesthood" "because he was of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood." So clearly being righteous wouldn't automatically lift the curse.

From the Book of Mormon we also clearly see that the black skin was the mark of the curse and at one point righteous Lamanites had the curse removed and became white. There's also the promise that in a future day they're descendants would become white and delightsome.

So I think that it's logical to conclude that as long as blacks still have dark skin, that the curse hasn't been removed yet. This is clearly what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the church prior to 1978 believed.

If you follow your line of thinking, and you believe the church was justified, then they are still in the wrong today.

If the church was justified in the priesthood ban, how are they "still in the wrong today?"