Recent Article Concerning Church History

[altersteve]

We face the same problem when discussing the VIII Article of faith. "Translate" does not mean in 2011 what it did in 1842.

Lehi

What did it mean in 1842?

[LeSellers]

What did [translate] mean in 1842?

As far as I know, there is no accessible dictionary of the USmerican English language from 1842. However, the 1828 dictionary Webster produced would have been formative for Joseph and his peers. It reflected the language they grew up with.

It was published in New England and represented what educated people meant in their speech, so it is reasonable to assume that Joseph would have at least tried to use the same terminology to express the same ideas. Thus, with little fear of reasonable contradiction, I believe "translate" meant "to move from one location or form to another", "to transmit".

Lehi

[Gohan]

It was estimated it would cost $7 million to purchase the slaves. The Civil War cost $8 million (these millions could be billions. I can't remember the figures).

Ged

That'd be in the billions I believe. By the 1860 census there were about 3.5 million slaves (Somesay more, but I'll go with the low count) in the United States. The average cost per slave was about $1658 as well, during the same period. So about $5.8 billion to free the slaves then. The total cost for the war worked out to be about $5.2 billion.

Sorry, couldn't help chiming in there.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Gohan

[Calm]

by attacking not merely southern slavery but all forms of racial inequality

If that position is what defined "Abolitionist" for the time, then I would agree with you that it was definitely not mainstream.

[ashylikeamug]

According to the 1828 edition of Miriam Webster's magnum opus. the word "abolition" didn't even exist, so I'll gladly grant that Joseph probably wasn't one by the standards of the time.

However, the word has come to mean something very specific in the XX and XXI, so we are not out of line to call him an abolitionist by the standards of our own time.

England and USmerica, in the words of (Wilde, Shaw, Churchill, take your pick) are two people separated by a common language. It's obvious that the XIX and the XXI are similarly situated.

Lehi

I am Ged's son and this post hurts my soul. It is a totally ahistorical and anachronistic idea. History is about understanding the past in the terms of the people who lived it. If we take a teleological approach then we fail to truly understand the past as it understood itself. This leads to the misappropriation of history and perpetrates a gross injustice on those who lived in the past.

In reality the term abolition was very specific in his time as it is now. Popular conceptions often oversimplify complicated ideas. This can clearly be seen in many previous posts (It is laughable to call Jefferson an abolitionist or against slavery). This definitely holds true for antislavery and abolition. Today and in the 1830s abolition and antislavery are clearly distinguished. Many incorrectly conflate the two. Scholars do not. This is clearly seen by comparing John Brown and Abraham Lincoln. Brown was an abolitionist. He was radical and unflinching in his moral opposition to slavery. Abraham Lincoln can be termed as an antislavery proponent. He was against the expansion of slavery but was not necessarily against its existence. For more information on slavery and politics during the antebellum period you can consult Eric Foner's Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. Also, Daniel Walker Howe's exhaustive Pulitzer Prize winning synthesis What Hath God Wrought articulates these distinctions according to scholars and Jacksonians. For slavery among Mormons I would look at a recent thesis done by a BYU graduate student. It is entitled, A Peculiar Place for the Peculiar Institution. It can be found at lib.byu.edu under the thesis and dissertations tab in the lower right hand corner. Click on BYU thesis and search the title.

Joseph Smith and many other Mormons could be considered antislavery. They were against the continued spread of slavery. Most northerners like Smith were only concerned about slavery as it became closer to them. Mostly they were fine with it far away. It was only as it spread that many northerners grew concerned with it's continuation. It is a myth that slavery is economically inefficient and that is was on the decline in the antebellum period. It is a beautifully efficient labor system that is adaptable to a wide variety of labor situations. That is why there are an estimated 30 million slaves in the world today. Further proof that the methods of abolitionists were opposed by early Mormons is seen in D&C 134:12. Those sources should clarify why Joseph Smith was no abolitionist.

[Anijen]

I am Ged's son and this post hurts my soul. It is a totally ahistorical and anachronistic idea. History is about understanding the past in the terms of the people who lived it. If we take a teleological approach then we fail to truly understand the past as it understood itself. This leads to the misappropriation of history and perpetrates a gross injustice on those who lived in the past.

In reality the term abolition was very specific in his time as it is now. Popular conceptions often oversimplify complicated ideas. This can clearly be seen in many previous posts (It is laughable to call Jefferson an abolitionist or against slavery). This definitely holds true for antislavery and abolition. Today and in the 1830s abolition and antislavery are clearly distinguished. Many incorrectly conflate the two. Scholars do not. This is clearly seen by comparing John Brown and Abraham Lincoln. Brown was an abolitionist. He was radical and unflinching in his moral opposition to slavery. Abraham Lincoln can be termed as an antislavery proponent. He was against the expansion of slavery but was not necessarily against its existence. For more information on slavery and politics during the antebellum period you can consult Eric Foner's Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. Also, Daniel Walker Howe's exhaustive Pulitzer Prize winning synthesis What Hath God Wrought articulates these distinctions according to scholars and Jacksonians. For slavery among Mormons I would look at a recent thesis done by a BYU graduate student. It is entitled, A Peculiar Place for the Peculiar Institution. It can be found at lib.byu.edu under the thesis and dissertations tab in the lower right hand corner. Click on BYU thesis and search the title.

Joseph Smith and many other Mormons could be considered antislavery. They were against the continued spread of slavery. Most northerners like Smith were only concerned about slavery as it became closer to them. Mostly they were fine with it far away. It was only as it spread that many northerners grew concerned with it's continuation. It is a myth that slavery is economically inefficient and that is was on the decline in the antebellum period. It is a beautifully efficient labor system that is adaptable to a wide variety of labor situations. That is why there are an estimated 30 million slaves in the world today. Further proof that the methods of abolitionists were opposed by early Mormons is seen in D&C 134:12. Those sources should clarify why Joseph Smith was no abolitionist.

Eric Foner in his excellent book Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men does not portray Lincoln as "against its [slavery] existence", to the contrary Lincoln was against slavery. Right up to the Civil War Lincoln wanted to free them and then relocate them to either Africa or Central America. In fact he was surprised when he learned from black leaders that they did not want to leave. Eric Foner's new book The Fiery Trial and Stephen B. Oates book Abraham Lincoln the Man Behind the Myths Portrays a very anti-slavery Lincoln.

[LeSellers]

I am Ged's son and this post hurts my soul. It is a totally ahistorical and anachronistic idea. History is about understanding the past in the terms of the people who lived it. If we take a teleological approach then we fail to truly understand the past as it understood itself. This leads to the misappropriation of history and perpetrates a gross injustice on those who lived in the past.

I'm not a scholar, and I do not care about the shades and subtleties of erudite discourse. I am a plain-spoken man, who uses real language, not flowery fluff.

"Anachronistic" only applies when we try to impose currents definitions on the past. No one here has tried to do that. My point is that when we discuss Joseph's philosophy in the XXI, we use terms that are current today.

We can "understand the past in the terms of the people who lived it", but that does not mean we must use those terms as they used them. Language changes. What "abolitionist" meant in 1842 does not limit us in how we use the term to day. Today the word means, for all practical purposes, antislavery and nothing else. It does not mean John Brown militancy. No one calling Joseph Smith an abolitionist implies that he wanted to raid plantations and lead the slaves into revolt against their masters. He wanted to end slavery, and in XXI language that is an abolitionist.

Section 134 mentions slavery and forbids the Church from teaching the Gospel to salves against their masters' wishes. However, reading it in context does not make the case that he cared nothing about slavery's existing. He didn't even write it and it was included in the Doctrine and covenants while he was out of town. But the text clearly says that religious and political power ought not intermingle. Since the law was that slavery was legal, there was nothing the Church could do about it directly. There's a parallel when it talks about the will of the people and the will of the sovereign. It would be ridiculous to claim that Joseph did not desire that all live under republican governments just because this section acknowledged the existence of monarchies.

Were I to go back in time and talk to XIX frontier USmericans about his position, I'd be more careful about which words I used. I am not then, so I use those words that convey the meaning I have to people who speak the same language I do: XXI USmerican English.

Lehi

[ashylikeamug]

Eric Foner in his excellent book Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men does not portray Lincoln as "against its [slavery] existence", to the contrary Lincoln was against slavery. Right up to the Civil War Lincoln wanted to free them and then relocate them to either Africa or Central America. In fact he was surprised when he learned from black leaders that they did not want to leave. Eric Foner's new book The Fiery Trial and Stephen B. Oates book Abraham Lincoln the Man Behind the Myths Portrays a very anti-slavery Lincoln.

I would say that Lincoln was against slavery but was willing to allow it's continuation in the South. He was definitely against the spread of slavery beyond the South because of his problems with the institution.This is supported by the works you named. I oversimplified, my apologies.

[ashylikeamug]

I'm not a scholar, and I do not care about the shades and subtleties of erudite discourse. I am a plain-spoken man, who uses real language, not flowery fluff.

"Anachronistic" only applies when we try to impose currents definitions on the past. No one here has tried to do that. My point is that when we discuss Joseph's philosophy in the XXI, we use terms that are current today.

We can "understand the past in the terms of the people who lived it", but that does not mean we must use those terms as they used them. Language changes. What "abolitionist" meant in 1842 does not limit us in how we use the term to day. Today the word means, for all practical purposes, antislavery and nothing else. It does not mean John Brown militancy. No one calling Joseph Smith an abolitionist implies that he wanted to raid plantations and lead the slaves into revolt against their masters. He wanted to end slavery, and in XXI language that is an abolitionist.

Lehi

I am confused by this post. You say, "'Anachronistic' only applies when we try to impose currents definitions on the past." And then you contend that no one is doing that. You proceed to present a misinformed definition of abolition in "terms that are current today." Do you see the conflict? Abolition has a very specific definition today and in the past. This definition does not apply to Joseph Smith. You cannot fault anyone but yourself if you don't know that. Please consult the sources that I provided. They will clarify this issue very easily. The graduate student thesis is beyond clear. Many people have misconceptions about the history of slavery. For example, someone previously stated that most people didn't believe that slaves had souls. This is incorrect. In the 1660s converting slaves became a means of justifying slavery. Masters believed that part of the mission of slavery was to Christianize the heathen souls of Africans. Thus, continuing slavery would protect slaves from reverting to their heathen ways. This was a Southern defense of slavery. More info on this can be found in The Origins of Proslavery Christianity by Charles F Irons. So, please research this fascinating subject more and you will plainly see what I am arguing.

[Nominee]

I did not describe Joseph Smith as an abolitionist when I lived beside him in 1842 because I wasn't trying to peg him as part of a radicalist movement, after all he just had ideas on how to free the slaves and felt that freeing them would be a good thing to do. He was not willing to conspire against the law or bring harm to others to accomplish his goals. However, I have since relocated to 2011. Here in 2011, I was sitting in a diner last week and my date asked me, "Was Joseph was an abolitionist." I asked my date, "by abolitionist do you mean 'a person that is against slavery'?" My date said, "yes, of course, what else would I mean?!" So to be polite I responded, " Oh, nothing, and yes, yes Joseph was an abolitionist which is to say that he did not support slavery."

[LeSellers]

I am confused by this post.

Fine, you win.

Lehi