kolipoki09 Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 The article also implies that Mormons believe only Mormons gain salvation.Tuesday, 8.--I [Joseph Smith] spent the day with Elder Rigdon in visiting Elder Cahoon at the place he had selected for his residence, and in attending to some of our private, personal affairs; also in the afternoon I answered the questions which were frequently asked me, while on my last journey but one from Kirtland to Missouri, as printed in the Elders' Journal, vol. I, Number II, pages 28 and 29, as follows:............. Third--"Will everybody be d*mned, but Mormons?"Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness. (History of the Church, 3:28-29)
Log Posted April 1, 2012 Author Posted April 1, 2012 Sigh.Mormons also believe a great number of the saved shall also be damned, to greater or lesser degrees. A specific example would be the unmarried celestial beings.Mormons also believe that a great number of non-Mormons shall be saved in some kingdom or another. Baptism, confirmation, and temple ordinances only pertain to the celestial kingdom.
Storm Rider Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 In that we believe that all the ordinances of salvation will be offered to all people from the beginning of time to the end of this earth, all will have the opportunity for Exaltation. Being a LDS does not guarantee Exaltation any more than being a Hindu excludes you from it. All will bend their knee to Jesus Christ; all will know the truth. Attempting to claim that only one people will be in the Celestial Kingdom is a misunderstanding of scripture and doctrine.
Log Posted April 1, 2012 Author Posted April 1, 2012 In that we believe that all the ordinances of salvation will be offered to all people from the beginning of time to the end of this earth, all will have the opportunity for Exaltation. Being a LDS does not guarantee Exaltation any more than being a Hindu excludes you from it. All will bend their knee to Jesus Christ; all will know the truth.Attempting to claim that only one people will be in the Celestial Kingdom is a misunderstanding of scripture and doctrine.Who's making any such claims?
kolipoki09 Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Sigh.Mormons also believe a great number of the saved shall also be damned, to greater or lesser degrees. A specific example would be the unmarried celestial beings.Mormons also believe that a great number of non-Mormons shall be saved in some kingdom or another. Baptism, confirmation, and temple ordinances only pertain to the celestial kingdom.I'm not disagreeing with you Log, I'm just saying that, given statements like that of Joseph Smith's, it wouldn't be too difficult to misunderstand as a journalist and come away with the idea that Mormons believe they're the only ones going to heaven. Your first sentence is very important. One thing I've always pointed out is that in Mormon theology, salvation and exaltation are essentially two sides of the same coin, as illustrated in D&C 132:17:For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
Avatar4321 Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Only problem is the evidence is weak at best that they even had a relationship.
noel00 Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 1. Madison (Sally Hemmings son) 'his mother was Jefferson's "concubine"2. Sally only fell pregnant when Jefferson was home at Monticello3. Sally taken to France with him, taught French, given gifts (could have been free in France, chose to go back)4.DNAEven some conservative scholars admit the relationship now. See the PBS program on the matter. Brodie's son claims that many Jefferson scholars whose careers were built on their writings on the man, could not bring themselves to see Jefferson in this new light.
Pahoran Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Even some conservative scholars admit the relationship now. See the PBS program on the matter. Brodie's son claims that many Jefferson scholars whose careers were built on their writings on the man, could not bring themselves to see Jefferson in this new light.Brodie has a son?Permit me to explode a popular myth: Brodie's awful biography shed no "new light." She was not the first to write about the supposed Jefferson-Hemings relationship. If there is anything original in her treatment of that old rumour, it is the way in which she parlayed it into the central episode of Jefferson's life. Some people might think that a number of other things might be more historically significant, like (just for example) authoring the DofI and serving as POTUS; but not la Brodie. For other historians, it was an unprovable rumour about whether or not one more southern slave-holder took advantage of one of his slaves, as if that was so very unusual. But for Brodie it explained everything anyone needs to know about Jefferson, although how exactly it explains why he did things no other southern slave-holder did, is not clear.Regards,Pahoran
noel00 Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Since you have "issues" with Brodie, read Annette Gordon-Reed,s book The Hemingses of Monticello. She appears in the show on PBS that dealt with the issue. Also Brodie's son is interviewed there. He says that Brodie got upset many traditional Jefferson historians because they whole .lives had been built on writing a lie. Brodie's book on Sir Richard Burton is great. But then I supposes your Brodie "venom" will discount that effort also.
Avatar4321 Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 DNA evidence isn't nearly as convincing as some have made it sound.
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Avatar4321:It's pretty convincing, but not conclusive. The best we can do so far is that it was a male related to Thomas. Whether it was Thomas himself, or a brother we can't tell from just the genetics.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 http://news.yahoo.co...-154735300.htmlWords fail me.Clearly we have agents provocateurs in our midst.If he could have in his lifetime he would have married her.
cdowis Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Here are some of those who entered a marriage date, according to the records.Deleted personal email addresses.
LeSellers Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 If he could have in his lifetime he would have married her.We frequently forget this important fact: it was illegal in XVIII Virginia for a white man to marry a slave or any free Negro.I do not know, nor do I care too much, whether Jefferson fathered Hemmings' children. But Sally was his wife's, Martha's half sister (and perhaps cousin as well, the Randolphs were not too particular where they sowed their oats*). She looked amazingly like Martha, and was very fair-skinned, as I read the accounts. Thomas Jefferson was smitten by his widowed wife, and took her to Shadwell (one of his two estates, Monticello came later) and loved her dearly. It doesn't take much imagination to see Thomas falling in love with his wife again, and being unable to do anything legal about it. This is another example of how slavery was also a burden on the slave owners: it turned them into inhuman cads just as frequently as it changed the slaves into beats of burden.* I recently read yet another reason that chattel slavery was doomed in USmerica: the white women of the South were near to being fed up with seeing their slaves becoming lighter and lighter after their husbands were absent from the manor house for a couple of weeks at a time, almost, but not quite, a year earlier.Jefferson worried about slavery for decades. It enslaved him as much as it enslaved the Africans who worked his farms. After he married Martha, she inherited more land, and, with it, more slaves. The debt that came both was enormous. He could not sell the land (and didn't want to) after Martha died, either: the slaves and the land they came with were collateral for the debts. He died without being able to pay his father-in-law's debts, much less his own.It is interesting to note that he rarely pursued runaway slaves, especially Hemmings' children. He did manumit a few, including several of her offspring, when he died, but the bank kept him from following what I believe to have been his desire to rid himself of this burden.Lehi
bluebell Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Jefferson worried about slavery for decades. It enslaved him as much as it enslaved the Africans who worked his farms.While i think trying to suggest that Jefferson's suffering or bondage from and to slavery was equal to that of his slaves is a grossly erroneous statement, i agree that Jefferson was never completely comfortable with the practice.He was famous for declaring that slavery was like trying to hold a wolf by the ears. You didn't really want to hang on, but you dared not let go.
Avatar4321 Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Avatar4321:It's pretty convincing, but not conclusive. The best we can do so far is that it was a male related to Thomas. Whether it was Thomas himself, or a brother we can't tell from just the genetics.Exactly the problem. That doesn't make it convincing at all. It makes it a possibility. Citing the DNA as evidence when it's inconclusive at best is just an attempt to smear Jefferson. I am sure all will be revealed in the Spirit world and any mistakes will be rectified though.
noel00 Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Copy of report http://www.pbs.org/w...jefferson/true/"The final section of the report contains the committee's conclusion: that there is a high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings and probably all six of Sally Hemings's children.""What happens when a lie told among family members gets folded into the nation's history? We will never know exactly how much Jefferson's white family knew about their slave siblings, but one thing is certain, according to Rutgers professor Jan Ellen Lewis: the story created by Jefferson's white family that persisted throughout history--that Jefferson's nephews fathered Sally Hemings's children--was a lie. The Carrs served as the family lambs, sacrificed by their Jefferson cousins, while the Hemings's were written out of the family story altogether. "How are we to reckon the costs entailed upon the Hemings family first by their father's silence and then by his white family's lies?" asks Professor Lewis. "Perhaps we just add them to the unpaid bill of race, the interest still compounding, year after year, day after day."
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Avatar4321:We'll probably never know in this life the actual facts. But that is not say that other circumstantial evidence doesn't point to Thomas as the father of Sally's children. Slaves had no rights even to their own bodies. For the father of the Declaration of Independence this legacy is a terrible premature for the US Civil War four score and seven years later.
ERayR Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Exactly the problem. That doesn't make it convincing at all. It makes it a possibility. Citing the DNA as evidence when it's inconclusive at best is just an attempt to smear Jefferson. I am sure all will be revealed in the Spirit world and any mistakes will be rectified though.Why would it be a smear on Jefferson. He was a man of his time who, it appears, fell in love with a woman that because of the prevailing customs and laws and his position he could not marry. So it appears he may have found what happiness he could in the framework he had to work in. If it is an attempt to smear him it is in the framework of modern sensibilities and, in my mind, not valid.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Exactly the problem. That doesn't make it convincing at all. It makes it a possibility. Citing the DNA as evidence when it's inconclusive at best is just an attempt to smear Jefferson. I am sure all will be revealed in the Spirit world and any mistakes will be rectified though.Telling the truth that Jefferson loved Sally Hemings, is not an attempt to "smear".
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Pa Pa:He probably did love Sally, but that is beside the point. Sally had no legal means to resist.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Pa Pa:He probably did love Sally, but that is beside the point. Sally had no legal means to resist.OK let me put it another way...she loved him. No matter anyone's station this must be given freely.
bluebell Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Telling the truth that Jefferson loved Sally Hemings, is not an attempt to "smear".If it's all true then hopefully he did love her, but of course we have no way of knowing that. Most of the slave women who gave birth to their owner's children did so because they were raped or otherwise has no way to resist. Even if Jefferson did love sally, we can't forget that she might not have loved him back (though again, hopefully they did have a loving relationship as much as possible, if he truly was the father of her children).
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Pa Pa:She probably did love him, but that is beside the point. She had no legal right to refuse.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.