Did Abraham Lincoln Read The Book Of Mormon?

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/75704-did-lincoln-read-the-book-of-mormon

This author theorizes that Lincoln was guided by Book of Mormon principles in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and managing the Civil War.

I suppose we'll never know for certain, but it's a tantalizing thought.

I do find it persuasive that the war was divine retribution for national wickedness including slavery and the oppression of the Mormons.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

Wait, on one hand, most LDS will argue that the Lord had a hand in the formation of this nation and directly inspired our forefathers in their formation of the United States and particularly it's Constitution, which allowed for the practice of slavery, and now the Lord was directing Lincoln in battling that slavery that the "inspired" forefathers had all but ignored, and thus allowed as a right by way of ommission?

 

Anyone else see a contradiction here?

 

If the war was "divine retribution for national transgressions including slavery," than it was divine retribution for the institution that men inspired by the Lord had condoned? What????

 

If God was not for slavery, so much so that he sought retribution through the mechanism of the bloodiest and most cruel war in the history of our nation, than why didn't he just "inspire" the forefathers to disallow it altogether, as other nations had already done at that time?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Walden

[Scott Lloyd]

Wait, on one hand, most LDS will argue that the Lord had a hand in the formation of this nation and directly inspired our forefathers in their formation of the United States and particularly it's Constitution, which allowed for the practice of slavery, and now the Lord was directing Lincoln in battling that slavery that the "inspired" forefathers had all but ignored, and thus allowed as a right by way of ommission?

Anyone else see a contradiction here?

If the war was "divine retribution for national transgressions including slavery," than it was divine retribution for the institution that men inspired by the Lord had condoned? What????

If God was not for slavery, so much so that he sought retribution through the mechanism of the bloodiest and most cruel war in the history of our nation, than why didn't he just "inspire" the forefathers to disallow it altogether, as other nations had already done at that time?

The Founding Fathers did not ignore slavery. In fact they argued bitterly over it. I think the intent was that it be phased out over time (my memory is a bit murky on that point.) Obviously, that didn't happen.

To say that the Constitution was divinely inspired is not to say that every single word of it was dictated by God. Rather, the principles on which it was structured are divinely directed, particularly pertaining to God-given moral agency.

Read the Doctrine and Covenants on the subject of the U.S. Constitution to get a better understanding.

[USU78]

Wait, on one hand, most LDS will argue that the Lord had a hand in the formation of this nation and directly inspired our forefathers in their formation of the United States and particularly it's Constitution, which allowed for the practice of slavery, and now the Lord was directing Lincoln in battling that slavery that the "inspired" forefathers had all but ignored, and thus allowed as a right by way of ommission?

 

Anyone else see a contradiction here?

 

If the war was "divine retribution for national transgressions including slavery," than it was divine retribution for the institution that men inspired by the Lord had condoned? What????

 

If God was not for slavery, so much so that he sought retribution through the mechanism of the bloodiest and most cruel war in the history of our nation, than why didn't he just "inspire" the forefathers to disallow it altogether, as other nations had already done at that time?

 

That the states individually (sp. Missouri) refused to protect people in their enjoyment of their Ist Amendment rights and permitted (and in some cases enjoined) mob violence against minorities means that the states themselves failed to live up to their responsibilities, the provisions in their several constitutions notwithstanding.  The feds in Antebellum USA had no authority to intervene in local matters [as Matty Van correctly pointed out to JSJr].

[bluebell]

Wait, on one hand, most LDS will argue that the Lord had a hand in the formation of this nation and directly inspired our forefathers in their formation of the United States and particularly it's Constitution, which allowed for the practice of slavery, and now the Lord was directing Lincoln in battling that slavery that the "inspired" forefathers had all but ignored, and thus allowed as a right by way of ommission?

 

 

 

Just wanted to add that the founding fathers definitely did not ignore the slave issue.  In fact it was one of the most difficult issues for the constitutional convention to navigate.  

 

As horrible as it was, finally compromising on the slavery issue (along with the issues of state representation in congress and the senate) saved the convention. Without agreeing to allow concessions for slavery, the Southern states (NC, GA, and SC and maybe a couple more i can't remember off the top of my head) absolutely refused to sign.

 

The founding fathers definitely had weaknesses but we should try to be accurate when describing them.  

[Scott Lloyd]

That the states individually (sp. Missouri) refused to protect people in their enjoyment of their Ist Amendment rights and permitted (and in some cases enjoined) mob violence against minorities means that the states themselves failed to live up to their responsibilities, the provisions in their several constitutions notwithstanding. The feds in Antebellum USA had no authority to intervene in local matters [as Matty Van correctly pointed out to JSJr].

The author I cited here makes the point that the nation was forced by the war to adopt the 13th (abolishing slavery) and 14th (eliminating the excesses of the states' rights doctrine) Amendments because the people had failed to do so earlier of their own free will. Edited May 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Just wanted to add that the founding fathers definitely did not ignore the slave issue. In fact it was one of the most difficult issues for the constitutional convention to navigate.

As horrible as it was, finally compromising on the slavery issue (along with the issues of state representation in congress and the senate) saved the convention. Without agreeing to allow concessions for slavery, the Southern states (NC, GA, and SC and maybe a couple more i can't remember off the top of my head) absolutely refused to sign.

The founding fathers definitely had weaknesses but we should try to be accurate when describing them.

Thanks, bluebell. You conveyed the same message as I but did so with greater precision.

[Walden]

The Founding Fathers did not ignore slavery. In fact they argued bitterly over it. I think the intent was that it be phased out over time (my memory is a bit murky on that point.) Obviously, that didn't happen.

To say that the Constitution was divinely inspired is not to say that every single word of it was dictated by God. Rather, the principles on which it was structured are divinely directed, particularly pertaining to God-given moral agency.

Read the Doctrine and Covenants on the subject of the U.S. Constitution to get a better understanding.

 

I can buy that not every single word of the Constitution was inspired by god.....but to ignore a institution as inhumane, cruel, and just plain devilish as slavery and consider it as essentially not being on God's radar enough to warrant even a line forbidding it in the Constitution seems to be....I don't know, just wrong and not worthy of such a being's adoration.

 

Then to argue that the principles on which the Constitution were structured were divinely directed, well except for that principle in which owning another person and forcing them into a lifelong sentence of hard labor might be wrong, well, that is just plain nuts. If it was about God-given moral agency, did god not consider blacks as having moral agency? Essentially, it was all about the God-given moral agency of white men?

[Walden]

Just wanted to add that the founding fathers definitely did not ignore the slave issue.  In fact it was one of the most difficult issues for the constitutional convention to navigate.  

 

As horrible as it was, finally compromising on the slavery issue (along with the issues of state representation in congress and the senate) saved the convention. Without agreeing to allow concessions for slavery, the Southern states (NC, GA, and SC and maybe a couple more i can't remember off the top of my head) absolutely refused to sign.

 

The founding fathers definitely had weaknesses but we should try to be accurate when describing them.  

 

So was God only inspiring some of the Founding Fathers? Were these the same ones arguing against slavery?

 

I would be interested to know which parts of the Constitution were divinely inspired and which parts were just of man.

[toon]

That the states individually (sp. Missouri) refused to protect people in their enjoyment of their Ist Amendment rights and permitted (and in some cases enjoined) mob violence against minorities means that the states themselves failed to live up to their responsibilities, the provisions in their several constitutions notwithstanding.  The feds in Antebellum USA had no authority to intervene in local matters [as Matty Van correctly pointed out to JSJr].

 

At the time the First Amendment did not apply to the states.  That only happened after Courts interpreted the 14th Amendment as incorporating the Bill of Rights and making them applicable to the states.

[USU78]

At the time the First Amendment did not apply to the states. That only happened after Courts interpreted the 14th Amendment as incorporating the Bill of Rights and making them applicable to the states.

the states had their own versions of the First Amendment

[Ahab]

So was God only inspiring some of the Founding Fathers? Were these the same ones arguing against slavery?

I would be interested to know which parts of the Constitution were divinely inspired and which parts were just of man.

You obviously don't understand what it means to be inspired by something.

Someday I hope you will be inspired to find out.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Ahab

[Duncan]

if I got the right President then Pres. Lincoln must have missed the part in the Book of Mormon where Teancum assasinated Amalickiah-shoulda heeded the warning-JUST KIDDING! or maybe wasn't it Franklin D. Richards was a President that got killed in office?

[bluebell]

So was God only inspiring some of the Founding Fathers? Were these the same ones arguing against slavery?

 

I would be interested to know which parts of the Constitution were divinely inspired and which parts were just of man.

 

Whenever something is good, it is of God.  Whenever something isn't good, it's not of God-but that does not mean that God can't still use it to accomplish His purposes.  We don't always give Him a lot to work with but that doesn't mean it can't be enough.

 

The founding fathers were probably all inspired to different degrees as they worked to accomplish the constitution and different parts of the constitution were probably inspired to different degrees as well.

 

Perhaps the real divine intervention was what allowed these men to compromise to the extent that they did.  Considering that the kind of compromise needed to create such a document, which ultimately took away states rights and gave them to a federal government which didn't actually exist yet but which all the states were afraid of, was expressly forbidden by the legislatures of most of the states' delegates which attended, it's amazing the good they did accomplish.  I know that the quest to take the ring back to Mordor was described as standing on the edge of a knife but it had nothing on the constitutional convention!

 

When you sit down and study the differences that these men had, and the differences and sometimes bad blood between the states, it is a freaking miracle that they got anything accomplished at all, let alone something as awesome as the constitution (even with its flaws).   That's probably where most of the inspiration went.  

[cinepro]

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/75704-did-lincoln-read-the-book-of-mormon

This author theorizes that Lincoln was guided by Book of Mormon principles in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and managing the Civil War.

I suppose we'll never know for certain, but it's a tantalizing thought.

I do find it persuasive that the war was divine retribution for national wickedness including slavery and the oppression of the Mormons.

 

Maybe he covers it in his book, but any discussion that involves D&C 87 but doesn't mention the Nullification Crisis is intentionally misleading.

 

I'm also mystified about how the Civil War could be considered "divine retribution" for anything having to do with Mormonism.  A war is composed of millions of individual actions.  I don't know a lot about the Civil War, but I've never heard that anyone involved acted irrationally in such a way that it seemed God was inspiring them to make it worse.

 

And obviously you can't argue that God just allowed it to happen as retribution because it's already been well established in Mormon philosophy that God "just allows" terrible stuff to happen all the time, whether or not it has anything to do with Mormonism.

[USU78]

The author I cited here makes the point that the nation was forced by the war to adopt the 13th (abolishing slavery) and 14th (eliminating the excesses of the states' rights doctrine) Amendments because the people had failed to do so earlier of their own free will.

 

I agree with the sentiment.  Both perfectly plausible and consistent with D&C 87:1-3.

[ERayR]

Wait, on one hand, most LDS will argue that the Lord had a hand in the formation of this nation and directly inspired our forefathers in their formation of the United States and particularly it's Constitution, which allowed for the practice of slavery, and now the Lord was directing Lincoln in battling that slavery that the "inspired" forefathers had all but ignored, and thus allowed as a right by way of ommission?

 

Anyone else see a contradiction here?

 

If the war was "divine retribution for national transgressions including slavery," than it was divine retribution for the institution that men inspired by the Lord had condoned? What????

 

If God was not for slavery, so much so that he sought retribution through the mechanism of the bloodiest and most cruel war in the history of our nation, than why didn't he just "inspire" the forefathers to disallow it altogether, as other nations had already done at that time?

 

Your question presupposes that God micro-manages all that goes on, on this planet.  I don't accept that premise.

[USU78]

Maybe he covers it in his book, but any discussion that involves D&C 87 but doesn't mention the Nullification Crisis is intentionally misleading.

 

Mindread much?

[Disciple?]

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/75704-did-lincoln-read-the-book-of-mormon

This author theorizes that Lincoln was guided by Book of Mormon principles in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and managing the Civil War.

I suppose we'll never know for certain, but it's a tantalizing thought.

I do find it persuasive that the war was divine retribution for national wickedness including slavery and the oppression of the Mormons.

No, he was guided by keeping the Union together at all costs.

 

No, he was g

[Disciple?]

I can buy that not every single word of the Constitution was inspired by god.....but to ignore a institution as inhumane, cruel, and just plain devilish as slavery and consider it as essentially not being on God's radar enough to warrant even a line forbidding it in the Constitution seems to be....I don't know, just wrong and not worthy of such a being's adoration.

 

Then to argue that the principles on which the Constitution were structured were divinely directed, well except for that principle in which owning another person and forcing them into a lifelong sentence of hard labor might be wrong, well, that is just plain nuts. If it was about God-given moral agency, did god not consider blacks as having moral agency? Essentially, it was all about the God-given moral agency of white men?

 

The reality is that without slavery the United States would not be the wealthiest nation on earth. It is possible the U.S. would have collapsed or been conquered if not for slavery. That is - obviously - not meant to justify slavery in any way, shape, or form.

[Bikeemikey]

The reality is that without slavery the United States would not be the wealthiest nation on earth. It is possible the U.S. would have collapsed or been conquered if not for slavery. That is - obviously - not meant to justify slavery in any way, shape, or form.

This is a highly questionable assertion.

CFR please.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Disciple?]

This is a highly questionable assertion.

CFR please.

I don't know, you can verify it through multiple sources on the internet or in books.

 

What could have possibly replaced slavery (cotton) as the driving force behind an upstart economy in the United States?

[omni]

The reality is that without slavery the United States would not be the wealthiest nation on earth. It is possible the U.S. would have collapsed or been conquered if not for slavery. That is - obviously - not meant to justify slavery in any way, shape, or form.

 

Oooookay...

[CV75]

Anyone else see a contradiction here?

I think D&C 98:5 and101:77-80 shed some light on this.

 

The U.S. Constitution is the basis of those laws that belong to all mankind and support the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges (D&C 98:5).

 

That the Lord suffered the laws and the constitution of the people indicates that He holds the principle of moral agency as a top priority, and with that expects His children to govern themselves for the rights and protection of all flesh, and He expects us to do so according to just and holy principles. The Founding Fathers, and we all, have the Light of Christ to guide us in establishing our laws and constitution if we are willing (D&C 88). It states that “it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another,” yet He established the U.S. Constitution “by the hands of wise men whom [He] raised up unto this very purpose,” again, according to His allowance that they operate according to their conscience in light of the law He gives us all.

 

Sure, God is the source of the highest principles of freedom and He ensured that they would be incorporated into the U.S. Constitution by men He raised up and allowed to act according to the light they received from Him. How perfectly? He left that up to the Founding Fathers and holds them and us accountable.

 

Specific to slavery, the allowance* for it in the early Constitution was obviously as good as they felt they could do and it wasn’t an easy compromise to make. And of course slavery, being contrary to the principle that “it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another” cannot bring the blessings of peace and prosperity that for example, Abraham sought for, and in fact brings the opposite.

 

* That God allowed the “hands of wise [and accountable] men” to incorporate it despite His higher principles, and the allowance of it by those “wise men” who were against it but decided it was more important to compromise for the time being.

[CV75]

I do find it persuasive that the war was divine retribution for national wickedness including slavery and the oppression of the Mormons.

I haven't read the link, but I do understand that "the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed (Mormon 4:5)." So whenever/wherever there is prolonged wickedness, we have a rich environment for contention to build, even to the point of violence. I think this sort of thing can be considered "divine retribution"  because in breaking God's eternal law, such punishment at the hands of each other is fully deserved (what else is to be expected?).

 

I know there can be some debate over how either side was seeped in wickedness in the Civil War, but in retrospect it clearly arose through "the slave question (D&C 130:13," which clearly runs afoul of the Lord's principles of freedom (as does religious oppression).