Jump to content

LDS Watchman

Limited
  • Posts

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LDS Watchman

  1. What's the deal Nemesis? You suspend me and restrict my account and when I try to ask you to tell me which forum rule I broke you refuse to answer. That's because you are a coward and know I didn't break any rules, but don't have the moral courage to admit it. Since you have now also blocked my ability to message you asking for an explanation, I'm going to publicly air my grievances. If you had any integrity you would have either told me what rule I broke or lifted my restrictions, but you didn't. I followed the forum rules. I was civil. I didn't make any personal attacks, like the other posters in that discussion did. Most of my comments were in response to questions I was being asked. I also backed up my claims with the scriptures and statements by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Yet you allowed these other posters to break forum rules by making personal attacks against me and making disparaging comments about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, while punishing me for my views, not for any rule violation. You're acting like some pompous tyrant who rules this forum with a iron fist and answers to no one. This is how woke leftists act. Instead of allowing diversity of thought, you accuse people whose ideas you disagree with of being racists and then silence them with your cancel culture tactics. Simply pathetic. You proved my point about the current corrupt state of the Church. The scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith prove that we have become corrupted. I'm being banished for pointing this out and apparently my arguments are so damning that I have to be silenced so you and most of the others on this forum can keep their heads in a hole and pretend that all is well in Zion (except that maybe we're not quite woke enough for most of you yet). I know I'll be banned for this, so I guess this is good bye. Enjoy playing dictator buddy. I'm out.
  2. The church has never said the ban or past teachings of blacks being descendants of Cain and under a curse were a mistake. Can you please provide the quotes from Brigham and Joseph about moon people? I don't have a problem with this anyway. We believe in a veil and things that are unseen to the naked eye don't we? And I'm offering mine. I never said that Joseph and Brigham were infallible super heroes, but they were mighty prophets of God and their teachings on this subject square with the scriptures. So is it okay to question the current teachings an actions of the brethren then, and believe they are in error for departing from the original teachings and doctrines of the church? Or is it only okay to question past dead prophets?
  3. I think that in this instance Brigham took it a tad to far. He sometimes used rhetoric that was a little bit over the top to make a point. His point in this case being that blacks cannot hold the priesthood even if they are of a mixed race.
  4. I'm not making any assumptions. You act is if the priesthood ban and all the teachings on blacks being a cursed race are my idea. They are not. I simply believe what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. and the scriptures teach about it. All I have to offer to your questions/concerns is my personal opinions. And like I said I'm not really worried about these things. I trust the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young and that's good enough for me.
  5. Does this only apply to past prophets or is it okay to believe the current ones are making mistakes? When the teachings of past prophets contradict the present teachings, both can't be right. One group is most definitely in error.
  6. You're confused. I only quoted you once and that was in regards to your science magazine quote. Please retract your false accusation against me.
  7. Here's what Joseph Smith taught. Judge for yourself: 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. "Letter to Oliver Cowdery, circa 9 April 1836," p. [289-291], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 20, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1
  8. I appreciate you giving me a candid answer. So, essentially you believe that there is no connection between blacks and the curse of Cain and the curse put upon Canaan and his posterity, and that the entire doctrine as taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc was a false doctrine taught by racist men? I cannot accept this. I believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were correct. I've spent a lot of time studying this out, because I wanted to get to the bottom of the race and the priesthood issue. I'm 100% convinced that the orginal teaching about blacks in the church is correct. I know that puts me in the minority today. Our current PC woke culture hase no place for this doctrine. And if it gets me banned from this forum, I'll understand.
  9. Serious question. Do you believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor... all church presidents and apostles up to 1978 were racist bigots and that blacks are not the descendants of the cursed race of Canaanites in the scriptures? I'd like a candid answer. I think that's only fair considering how candid I've been in answering your questions.
  10. I believe that the Australian aborigines are also descendants of Canaan and therefore Cain. I'm a believer in a young earth in which the continents were divided in the days of Peleg. So I believe that some Canannites (the ancestors of the aborigines) were broken off from the others when the Australian continent was broken off.
  11. All I can offer is my opinion, for what it's worth. First of all, I'm not convinced that the ordinances being performed in the church today are completely valid anyway. If they are, I think the authority is there, but the power is generally absent. I don't believe most of us baptized members actually have the gift of the Holy Ghost in the way we think we do. Because I believe the power is pretty much gone, I don't know that it makes much difference at this point whether someone has an ordinance performed by a black man or a man of another race. And like I've said twice already, I consider it to be possible that the Lord permitted black men to have the same authority as every other man in the church for the time being. So in essence, even though I firmly believe that lifting the ban was wrong, I'm not worried about these supposed issues you refer, too. I believe past LDS presidents have addressed this question, but for what it's worth, here's my opinion: I don't worry about some unknown ancestor being black or percentages and all that. According to Brigham Young black skin and other distinctly "black" features represent the mark of the curse of Cain. So in my opinion those who have distinct "black" features are under the curse of Cain and those who don't aren't.
  12. In my opinion they don't count, but like I said I consider it possible that God temporarily allowed them to have the priesthood, similar to how he allowed Martin Harris to take the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. If the Lord did in fact permit them to have the priesthood, then I would assume that the ordinances they perform would be valid. Assuming of course that any of our ordinances are still valid at this point.
  13. You asked me a question and I gave an honest answer which I then supported from the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith. I'm sorry that offends you.
  14. I'm not advancing any doctrine that isn't straight from Joseph Smith and the scriptures. If that gets me banished then I guess this forum isn't for me. I also have never started a discussion about blacks and the curse of Cain. I have only responded to other people when they bring it up or ask me my opinions about it. People shouldn't ask questions if they can't handle the answers.
  15. I trust Joseph Smith and the revelations he brought forth over sciencemag.org.
  16. I'm sure a Baptists would say the same thing to a pair of full-time missionaries from our church. Truth is truth, whether it makes people uncomfortable or not. I can back up everything I'm saying from the scriptures and the words of Joseph Smith.
  17. Abraham 1, Moses 7, Genesis 9, Genesis 10, and the statements by Joseph Smith linking blacks to the curse Noah put upon Canaan and his posterity and calling them the "sons of Canaan" and "sons of Cain."
  18. And why is that? Because it's not PC? I quoted a scripture which says what it says. The Canaanites are blacks. The Lord said that when the setting in order happens, they will no longer be in his house. Why is that? Because I gave an honest and truthful answer to a question I was asked?
  19. The Canaanites are blacks. Look at Abraham 1, Moses 7, Genesis 9, and Genesis 10. Then compare that to what Joseph Smith taught about blacks being under a curse. He called them the "sons of Canaan" and "sons of Cain." He actually quoted from Genesis 9 and applied the curse Noah put on Canaan to the blacks. The Lord's use of the word "Canaanite" in the prophecy in Zechariah 14 was a specific reference to a specific people.
  20. My personal opinion is that they don't actually have the priesthood, for as Joseph Fielding Smith said "man can not give what God has denied." However, I also consider it to be possible that God did allow them to have the priesthood, just like he allowed Martin Harris to take the manuscript of the Book of Mormon.
  21. Among other things yes. Zechariah 14 says that when this correction happens "the Canaanite (blacks) will no longer be in the House of the Lord." Polygamy is an eternal principle and will most certainly be coming back when the Lord's people are once again worthy of it.
  22. I'm sure the brethren made these changes because they wanted to save the church. There was great external and internal pressure to make these changes. But I don't think these changes saved the church. I believe both were compromises with the world. But all is not lost. God knew this would happen and has a plan in place to correct the situation eventually.
  23. Sure it does. If it's written down we can compare it to the rest of the scriptures to see if it is consistent with the previously revealed word of God. We also know with absolute certainty that the prophet is claiming to speak for God in that instance and not from himself. If the revelation turns out to be false then we know the man who received it is actually a false prophet. And if it turns out to be true, then we know he's a true prophet. That's how we have been told to judge prophets, by their fruits. Prophecy, revelation, and seership are the expected fruits of prophets, seers, and revelators. If they don't produce these things we have no fruit to judge them by. Nice inspiring talks and counsel don't constitute the fruits of true prophets, seers, and revelators in the fullest sense.
  24. Yes of course this is possible, but it isn't in accordance with the pattern of how prophets have communicated the word of the Lord spoken directly to them to the people. All throughout the scriptures from Genesis to the end of the D&C we have God's actual words as quoted by the prophets who received them. In those same scripture we also have inspired teachings by the prophets without quoting the actual words of the Lord. So both ways are acceptable. However, neither is how it is done in the church today. We NEVER have the actual words of the Lord quoted to us. And while we are expected to believe that whatever our current church President says and does is straight from God, we don't consider the words of past church presidents to be scripture and the word of God. Here's an interesting fact for you. Several years ago Boyd K Packer gave a talk in conference in which he referred to the the Family Proclamation as a revelation. Then when the printed version of his talk came out his words were changed from the proclamation being a "revelation" to being "inspired counsel." Why was that changed? It's because it wasn't a revelation. There hasn't been any revelation in the scriptura sense from our prophets since before the manifesto. I think for it to be considered an actual revelation from God it needs to be in God's own words. At the very least the prophet could make it clear that God had spoken to him and then relay in his (the prophet's) own words the essence of what God or an angel had told him. Or perhaps what he had seen in a dream or vision. None of this EVER happens, however. Again, I don't expect this sort of thing constantly, but is every once in a while in over 100 years asking, too much, especially since we are told that our church President is a true prophet, seer, and revelator like the ones in the scriptures?
  25. I meant to reply to this comment earlier. I actually don't see the reduced Sunday Meetings, the Come Follow Me manual, and the switch to ministering as having prepared us one bit for the Covid shut downs. How did this prepare us? We were always supposed to be studying the gospel as a family. We've always had the scriptures and manuals similar to the Come Follow Me Manual. I'm actually not really impressed with the Come Follow Me manuals. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I look at the switch from 3 hours of church to 2 as a bad thing actually. I gained great strength from the 3 hours of church throughout my life. I actually really miss it. In my opinion the switch to ministering has been disastrous compared to home teaching. Serious question, since you see these changes as a good thing how did you think they prepared us for the lock downs? Would members have been unable to learn about the gospel in their homes without the Come Follow Me manual? Would home teachers and visiting teachers have been unable to text their families to check in instead of visiting them in person?
×
×
  • Create New...