We're Baaacckkk! -- Next Ow Action

[smac97]

DELETED

Edited September 19, 2014 by smac97

[ksfisher]

Perhaps, your righteous indignation would have better served the blacks who served as ACTUAL slaves in the last slaveholding territory of America -- Brigham's Utah. 

 

Legalized slavery ended in Utah at the same time that it did in New Mexico and Arizona.

 

http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/freeterr.htm

 

http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/new-mexico-territory-slave-code-1859-1867

 

Law Enacting Emancipation in the Federal Territories

CHAP. CXI.–An Act to secure Freedom to all Persons within the Territories of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

APPROVED, June 19, 1862.

U.S., Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations of the United States of America, vol. 12 (Boston, 1863), p. 432.

 

 

 

Slavery in New Mexico Territory was never focused on black bondage as in the Southern states. New Mexico Territory never had more than a dozen or so black slaves because it had other forms sources of coerced labor, both Native American indentured servants and slaves, and Mexican peons. The economy of antebellum New Mexico Territory was similar to the Old South with a small aristocracy of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking landowners holding vast estates. While all almost all slaves were Indians, indentured servants came from a variety of backgrounds as individuals would sell themselves or family members into lifetime servitude to pay off debts.

By the 1850s New Mexico had a thriving and growing economy that included extensive slave labor.  During that decade New Mexico slavers made a number of raids into Indian Territory which increased the number of enslaved Native Americans.  With the attention on Indian slaves, black bondage was not given much consideration. By the mid-1850s a number of fugitive black slaves from Texas arrived in the Territory.  The Territorial Legislature passed a law in 1856 which for the first time limited the number of free blacks coming into New Mexico in hopes of discouraging the fugitives’ flight there.  That law forced some New Mexico blacks to leave the Territory. 

Then in 1859 the Territorial Legislature enacted New Mexico Territory’s first Slave Code.  The law restricted slave travel, prohibited slaves from testifying in court, and limited the owners’ right to arm slaves. This code was all implemented ironically to keep blacks out of New Mexico and preserve Native Americans as the major group of enslaved workers. 

The Slave Code’s impact was short.  In 1862 the United States Congress outlawed slavery in all U.S. territories including New Mexico.  Three years later the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude through out the nation.  The inclusion of involuntary servitude was added specifically to eliminate New Mexico Territory’s long tradition of indentured servitude.  

Sources:

Alvin R. Sunseri, Seeds of Discord: New Mexico in the Aftermath of the American Conquest, 1846-1861 (Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1979): Quintard Taylor, In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West 1528-1990 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998).

- See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/new-mexico-territory-slave-code-1859-1867#sthash.ymAixM8L.dpuf

Edited September 19, 2014 by ksfisher

[mormonnewb]

RECIPROCALLY DELETED.

Edited September 19, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 when you accuse ME of trivializing slavery,

Yet that is exactly what you did.

 

 

 

But for you to accuse a black man of trivializing the history of oppression is like the pot calling the kettle

I am not a racist I have black friends.

 

Stop using your race as a cover for your comments. You muffed up dude just accept it.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[MorningStar]

It is trivializing slavery when you compare something to slavery that is nothing even close to being as bad as slavery.  Same thing with rape comparisons. 

[mfbukowski]

Good news, bad news!

 

OW will NOT be assembling en masse at Temple Square to try to gain admittance to the priesthood session.  Instead, OW members will be attending their local priesthood sessions at stake centers across the world.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/next-action-october-priesthood-session/

 

Damn, I love these women!

So what?

 

They get to watch the broadcast.

 

This is huge  

[mormonnewb]

It is trivializing slavery when you compare something to slavery that is nothing even close to being as bad as slavery. Same thing with rape comparisons.

For the LAST time, I did not compare slavery to the lack of female ordination. I was simply arguing against the notion that because most women in the Church are satisfied with their station in the Church does not make it a "just" situation.

To demonstrate this point, I took the worst of all situations -- American slavery. By pointing out that SOME slaves were content with their situation, I HOPED to show that people enduring only slight mistreatment (women in our church) could certainly be comfortable with the status quo. But that contentment does not change the "justice" of the matter.

And finally, this overwhelming concern for the fate of MY distant ancestors is very interesting coming from some of the same people who regularly trivialize the denial of temple blessings to my very own FATHER and GRANDFATHER. I can't count the number of times that I have read how it's no big deal that blacks were excluded from participating in our most sacred ordinances. It was no big deal that they were denied sealings to their loved ones because, after all, HF would make it right AT SOME LATER DATE.

Yet, you shriek in horror that I am "trivializing" that these same people were subjected to earthly horrors, all while they are currently languishing in spirit prison waiting for the Savoir to return and straighten everything out? To be quite honest, I'm not convinced that you're losing any sleep over the mistreatment of blacks, inside or outside of the Church.

 

This is a thread about OW and the priesthood session.  If you want to talk about race make another thread.

[JAHS]

Robert Kirby's take on this:

 

"Summon the Legion for Ordain Women"

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58429443-78/legion-kirby-women-militia.html.csp

[maxrep12]

 

 

So I guess the real question is what will the OW do if they show up and it's only them and a few other men?  Will they stay and watch the whole two hour session, or leave?

It may be that boredom wins the day. Nothing to see here, excepting a few lashings administered over the pulpit about masturbation. The ladies may not return.

[busybee]

Just to be clear, the WoW, law of chastity or tithing are not MANDATORY for membership in the Church.  In fact, if they were, there would be very few members at all.  Sure, they are "commandments" but one can disobey them and still be an active member in this Church (although not "worthy" to enter the temple).  On the other hand, no woman can pass the sacrament, regardless of her desire to be "worthy."  So, in terms of comparison, you're absolutely right.  The CURRENT priesthood ban is FAR more restrictive.

Just to be clear, you cannot be baptised a member of the Church if you're not living these commandments ie, Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom and Law of Tithing prior to baptism, so in that sense they ARE mandatory to becoming a member. Whether you keep living these or any other commandments after baptism is up to you. But you will never be able to say you didn't know the law.

Edited September 20, 2014 by busybee

[Buzzard]

I still say we need to put them in charge of refreshments.  That way they can attend, and us brethren don't have to fix our own ice cream after the meeting. 

[Tacenda]

Well, I think some readers took your post as one where you were speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Yes, you denied saying that LDS women are "slaves," but then you proceeded to say - repeatedly - that they are "subjugated." To "subjugate" means, of course, "1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master" and "2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave."  Also consider the various synonyms of "subjugate":

• conquer
• enslave
• coerce
• compel
• crush
• enthrall
• force
• overcome
• overthrow
• quell
• reduce
• rule
• subdue
• suppress
• tame
• triumph
• vanquish
• bear down
• beat down
• bring to heel
• bring to knees
• hold sway
• keep under thumb
• kick around
• put down
• reel back in
• rule over

So of course you were comparing LDS women to slaves (and, implicitly, the LDS Church and its leaders to slavemasters).  You just threw in a clumsy denial as some sort of pathetic preemptive attempt at plausible deniability.

 

We all know what your were doing. You were claiming that LDS women are "subjugated," which is largely equivalent to "conquered," "enslaved," "coerced," and so on.

I have long blanched at the history of slavery in the world. I am likewise appalled when it is trivialized to make a grossly unfair, Godwin's Law-like rhetorical attack on someone else, as you have done here. Accusing the LDS Church of "subjugating" (that is, "enslaving" or "coercing" or "conquering") women is a detestable falsehood.

You grossly trivialize the issue of slavery in antebellum America when you compare it to the current environment for women in the LDS Church. The words "pathetic," "shameful" and "have you no decency" come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Sometimes women in the church might be mentally abused as bad as women in slavery, and it could last for decades.  Women feel enslaved when they don't feel equipped to make it on their own.  Mental abuse does occur in the church, and outside of it of course, not all women of course, but there are some men that control their wives using the PH, if not why do they bring up the problem in GC? 

[why me]

Sometimes women in the church might be mentally abused as bad as women in slavery, and it could last for decades.  Women feel enslaved when they don't feel equipped to make it on their own.  Mental abuse does occur in the church, and outside of it of course, not all women of course, but there are some men that control their wives using the PH, if not why do they bring up the problem in GC? 

I have no idea what you are writing here. How are women mentally abused in the church? And what does it mean not to make it on their own inside the church?

 

We are dealing with two separate issues in your post. One, the church as an institution. And two, a woman inside a marriage to a lds man. If we take the second, I am sure that men can also be mentally abused by the woman. Marriage can be terrible or a relationship can be terribe but this has nothing to do with the church but with the dynamics of the human personality. But how does the church mentally abuse women or men as an institution?

Edited September 20, 2014 by why me

[Tacenda]

Why Me--the mentality, and the PH going to a man's head. Why else do they bring it up in GC if it's not a problem in the church, and men aren't using authority righteously.

I think your downplaying abuse of women, and their feeling they are to go through their husband as he is the PH head, and IMO and from a situation I know of, women looked at their husbands or father as a God.

In that way, women might believe they have no rights or choices to do as they wish. If their husband takes the authority too far.

When my husband and I were getting ready to marry my bishop met with us in his office to give advice or something. He told us about a guy that would come home in the middle of the day and make his wife drop whatever she was doing to have sex. This must have been a problem because my bishop discouraged my husband from doing that.

But maybe I'm not talking about the same thing you and Mormonnewb are.

[Calm]

"Why else do they bring it up in GC if it's not a problem in the church, and men aren't using authority righteously."

 

Because it is a problem everywhere and some men and women will both use whatever is convenient to hand that will give them unrighteous power over another and to use the Priesthood or anything else in such a way is completely contrary to church teachings as well as a moral life.

Edited September 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

Sometimes women in the church might be mentally abused as bad as women in slavery, and it could last for decades.  Women feel enslaved when they don't feel equipped to make it on their own.  Mental abuse does occur in the church, and outside of it of course, not all women of course, but there are some men that control their wives using the PH, if not why do they bring up the problem in GC?

The sentiment expressed which I found objectionable was that the LDS Church and, it must be assumed, by its leaders, the past and current members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, by not ordaining women to the priesthood, are "subjugating" them.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Rain]

Why Me--the mentality, and the PH going to a man's head. Why else do they bring it up in GC if it's not a problem in the church, and men aren't using authority righteously.

I think your downplaying abuse of women, and their feeling they are to go through their husband as he is the PH head, and IMO and from a situation I know of, women looked at their husbands or father as a God.

In that way, women might believe they have no rights or choices to do as they wish. If their husband takes the authority too far.

When my husband and I were getting ready to marry my bishop met with us in his office to give advice or something. He told us about a guy that would come home in the middle of the day and make his wife drop whatever she was doing to have sex. This must have been a problem because my bishop discouraged my husband from doing that.

But maybe I'm not talking about the same thing you and Mormonnewb are.

Do the police warn children about going with strangers? That must mean that there is a high probability that strangers, even you and me, must be a danger right?

Or maybe we warn people because abusers, whether priesthood ordained husbands or kidnappers giving out candy, often blend in with the good people in the majority around them. It isn't being a stranger or a priesthood holder makes you bad. It is that those who are bad are wolves in sheep's clothing.