God, the prophet and slavery

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On Sunday during Fast & Testimony mtg, a man got up and spoke about growing up in Pres Thomas Monson's ward in SLC.  On Fast Sunday he was one of those young Aaronic priesthood who went out collecting fast offerings, and he went to Pres Monson's house, where he was admitted inside.  Pres Monson was trying hard to find his checkbook, but it was taking some time, when his outside security man came in to help him.  Pres Monson was curt with the guy and told him to go back outside.  This was a testimony to this man that the Lord calls flawed people to run His Church.  None of them are perfect, and we should not expect them to be.

Of course God is no O.K. with it.  But he leaves us on our own to do the best we can.  Just keep hanging in there, Tacenda.  Your sense of right & wrong will stand you in good stead.

I listened to a Radiowest interview with Greg Prince that discussed Pres. Monson after his passing. Greg brought up that the stories are true that Pres. Monson was curt with some employees at the church office building as well. So he is definitely human, and I imagine how a lot of these leaders might just be a little onery when you think of all their time serving and that it never really ends once they become an apostle/prophet.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Tacenda

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Yes of course. You should rely on what best takes you to truth. In my experience sometimes i think I know better than church leaders and I come to learn I was wrong. So I repent (change). Sometimes I learn I was right and the leaders change. Through it all the spirit sustains and encourages. The key is the keep walking and make truth the goal rather than winning the argument. 

Thanks for expanding on your post.  I really appreciate your perspective. 

[Exiled]

Men were definitely acting as men regarding the slave question. I can't imagine God approving of putting some of his children over others of his children and I always viewed the biblical approvals of slavery as mistranslations when I still believed.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know the answer to the slavery question, but in answer to the "why are we taught to follow the prophet? We should only be taught to follow Jesus Christ" question, i'd have to ask Tacenda, can she name one thing that she knows about Jesus Christ that didn't come through a prophet?

 

Almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, which weren't written by prophets. 

So really, just about everything we know about Jesus comes from anonymous lay members of early Christian communities, or in the case of John, one anonymous local sectarian church leader.

[Gray]

All prophets are fallible. But, it just so happens that the prophet Abraham Lincoln was closer to God on this issue than the prophet Brigham Young.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, which weren't written by prophets. 

So really, just about everything we know about Jesus comes from anonymous lay members of early Christian communities, or in the case of John, one anonymous local sectarian church leader.

According to the angel of God who guided the prophet Nephi through his great vision (the same all-encompassing vision given to the Apostle John and the brother of Jared), the New Testament contained the fulness of the gospel of Christ, the exact same fulness of the gospel taught and testified to by the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The only way the book described by the angel of God as the Book of the Lamb of God (the Bible) could contain the fulness of the gospel of Christ is if it’s writimgs were inspired of God. And the holy men who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke (I exclude the gospel of John because it was written by an apostle of the Lamb) had to be prophets in their own right , otherwise they would have lacked the prophetic inspiration needed in order to be able to produce writings the angel described as containing the fulness of the gospel. And remember, in the New Testament Church one did not have to be an apostle in order to be considered a prophet.

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book (the Bible) proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 13)

But of course I do realize that for those who consider the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction, the argument I’m making here has virtually no convincing power. So please understand that my argument Is presented here for the benefit of those who believe the Book of Mormon was written by ancient American prophets of God. In other words, I write with the realization that you’re not the only one who’s going to read this post.

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

According to the angel of God who guided the prophet Nephi through his great vision (the same all-encompassing vision given to the Apostle John and the brother of Jared), the New Testament contained the fulness of the gospel of Christ, the exact same fulness of the gospel taught and testified to by the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The only way the book described by the angel of God as the Book of the Lamb of God (the Bible) could contain the fulness of the gospel of Christ is if it’s writimgs were inspired of God.

I didn't say its writings weren't inspired. I believe they are.

 

Quote

And the holy men who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke (I exclude the gospel of John because it was written by an apostle of the Lamb) had to be prophets in their own right , otherwise they would have lacked the prophetic inspiration needed in order to be able to produce writings the angel described as containing the fulness of the gospel. And remember, in the New Testament Church one did not have to be an apostle in order to be considered a prophet.

All of the gospels writers are anonymous. The tradition about their authorship came generations later. None of them were written by people who knew Jesus in life. Some of it comes from received oral tradition - which again was passed down by many Christians, not the exclusive revelation of prophets.

 

 

 

Quote

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book (the Bible) proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 13)

But of course I do realize that for those who consider the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction, the argument I’m making here has virtually no convincing power. So please understand that my argument Is presented here for the benefit of those who believe the Book of Mormon was written by ancient American prophets of God. In other words, I write with the realization that you’re not the only one who’s going to read this post.

Actually, your argument is irrelevant because it doesn't touch upon my point, even tangentially. It has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist or not.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Gray

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I know what you meant, but that may not be fully accurate.  Obedience is the first law.

You are right. And that fact is one reason I worry I will never be fit to live there. In my darker moments I worry I will be fit to live there.  

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I didn't say its writings weren't inspired. I believe they are.

 

All of the gospels writers are anonymous. The tradition about their authorship came generations later. None of them were written by people who knew Jesus in life. Some of it comes from received oral tradition - which again was passed down by many Christians, not the exclusive revelation of prophets.

 

 

 

Actually, your argument is irrelevant because it doesn't touch upon my point, even tangentially. It has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist or not.

So the writers of the New Testament gospels were inspired of God enough to write holy scripture but they weren’t prophets — interesting...

Can you not see how the post you sent in response to bluebell would be understood by the vast majority of observers as being specifically designed to undermine her contention that everything we know about God has been revealed to us through prophets? Otherwise why did you say the writers of the gospels weren’t prophets, a statement that obviously stands in direct contradiction to her assertion?

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the writers of the New Testament gospels were inspired of God enough to write holy scripture but they weren’t prophets — interesting...

Were you under the impression that only prophets write scripture?

 

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Can you not see how the post you sent in response to bluebell would be understood by the vast majority of observers as being specifically designed to undermine her contention that everything we know about God has been revealed to us through prophets? Otherwise why did you say the writers of the gospels weren’t prophets, a statement that obviously stands in direct contradiction to her assertion?

She said everything we know about Jesus was revealed by prophets. That's not actually true. However I would agree that everything we know about God had been revealed by prophets from various traditions and viewpoints.

 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, which weren't written by prophets. 

So really, just about everything we know about Jesus comes from anonymous lay members of early Christian communities, or in the case of John, one anonymous local sectarian church leader.

Vetted by prophets then.

[strappinglad]

We are all slaves... to one master or another. Stop paying your taxes and see who becomes your master. Stop paying your mortgage and see how long you have a house even if it is 90% paid for. For some, alcohol ,drugs  and or cigarettes are the masters. For others it is pride or power. For those who are married, it may be a spouse. A Power Ball winner won over half a billion dollars. That person will really be free and yet they won't because now they are enslaved to the consequences ( and out-of-the-woodwork  friends and relatives ) Are the folks who live paycheck to paycheck free? How about those who rely on food stamps to survive. One should remember that for OT times and even BY times there was no welfare, no food stamps, no homeless shelters. Was slavery a kind of social safety net? Nah ! Too evil.

I am NOT defending slavery, but if the alternative is the solution given in the OP by the Native slave trader, which was to kill the child and question the other's charity, there must be some nuance to it.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Vetted by prophets then.

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

[Bobbieaware]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

Were you under the impression that only prophets write scripture?

 

She said everything we know about Jesus was revealed by prophets. That's not actually true. However I would agree that everything we know about God had been revealed by prophets from various traditions and viewpoints.

 

So you won’t give the “inspired” (your word) writers of the New Testament gospels the honor of being called prophets? (do yourself a favor an see how often in the New Testament men who are not members of the Quorum of the Twelve and serve in the lower echelon of the Church are called prophets) 

So give us several examples of those who are the “prophets from various traditions and viewpoints” of which you speak?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

I mean, is there anything that we know about Jesus Christ that hasn't come through a prophet or been examined and approved by a  prophet?  There isn't, which is why those dichotomies such as the one Tacenda presented make no sense. 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So you won’t give the “inspired” (your word) writers of the New Testament gospels the honor of being called prophets? (do yourself a favor an see how often in the New Testament men who are not members of the Quorum of the Twelve and serve in the lower echelon of the Church are called prophets) 

I don't know, Bobbieaware. Am I a prophet? Are you? Sure, why not?

I'm speaking in the sense that the word prophet is normally used in church. These were highly educated lay members of the church. Not apostles. Each of them had different beliefs about Jesus. Each of them had a different agenda. They had common sources they were drawing upon (Q & Mark mainly), and they each gave us their unique theological spin on Jesus. "John" was arguably from a different sect than the others (in fact all of them had different beliefs about Jesus), and also the furthest removed from the Jesus of history. So if you're willing to call people like Richard Bushman and Greg Prince and the local baptist minister down the street prophets, sure, they were prophets. But they weren't prophets in the same sense as Isaiah or Joseph Smith.

 

Quote

So give us several examples of those who are the “prophets from various traditions and viewpoints” of which you speak?

Isaiah and Joseph Smith are two such examples.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Gray

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

We are all slaves... to one master or another. Stop paying your taxes and see who becomes your master. Stop paying your mortgage and see how long you have a house even if it is 90% paid for. For some, alcohol ,drugs  and or cigarettes are the masters. For others it is pride or power. For those who are married, it may be a spouse. A Power Ball winner won over half a billion dollars. That person will really be free and yet they won't because now they are enslaved to the consequences ( and out-of-the-woodwork  friends and relatives ) Are the folks who live paycheck to paycheck free? How about those who rely on food stamps to survive. One should remember that for OT times and even BY times there was no welfare, no food stamps, no homeless shelters. Was slavery a kind of social safety net? Nah ! Too evil.

I am NOT defending slavery, but if the alternative is the solution given in the OP by the Native slave trader, which was to kill the child and question the other's charity, there must be some nuance to it.

Let's call it what it is...and not make any excuses, not that you were exactly. 

I like the comment on here about Abraham Lincoln knowing better than Brigham Young concerning slavery. Why is a prophet of God miles behind the president of the US? 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Tacenda

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I mean, is there anything that we know about Jesus Christ that hasn't come through a prophet or been examined and approved by a  prophet?  There isn't, which is why those dichotomies such as the one Tacenda presented make no sense. 

Well, the gospels predate LDS prophets. I don't know of any evidence that the gospels went through some kind of apostolic approval process when they were written. It's possible but they're quite late, so it doesn't seem likely. And of course all of them present a different kind of Jesus, so they're very uncorrelated.

I think prophets have come into the picture more after the fact, in how they've chosen to interpret and harmonize these accounts in creating a kind of cohesive theological view of Jesus.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, the gospels predate LDS prophets. I don't know of any evidence that the gospels went through some kind of apostolic approval process when they were written. It's possible but they're quite late, so it doesn't seem likely. And of course all of them present a different kind of Jesus, so they're very uncorrelated.

I think prophets have come into the picture more after the fact, in how they've chosen to interpret and harmonize these accounts in creating a kind of cohesive theological view of Jesus.

As I know you are aware since you're LDS and it's taught in the church, prophets have existed since Adam.

Besides that though, our prophets frequently teach testify of the things taught in the bible about Christ.  Elder Nelson was probably the latest to teach that we must immerser ourselves in the scriptures about Christ.  The NT is considered scripture.  It doesn't make sense know all of that and then say that the teachings about Christ in the bible haven't been studied and 'approved' by prophets.

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Let's call it what it is...and not make any excuses, not that you were exactly. 

I like the comment on here about Abraham Lincoln knowing better than Brigham Young concerning slavery. Why is a prophet of God miles behind the president of the US? 

Abraham Lincoln was not that interested in freeing slaves.  His focus was on preserving the country.  For Lincoln, slaves were a means to an end, and he frankly stated that he would use them whatever way would best serve his purpose.  In a letter to Horace Greeley Lincoln stated-

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I know you are aware since you're LDS and it's taught in the church, prophets have existed since Adam.

Besides that though, our prophets frequently teach testify of the things taught in the bible about Christ.  Elder Nelson was probably the latest to teach that we must immerser ourselves in the scriptures about Christ.  The NT is considered scripture.  It doesn't make sense know all of that and then say that the teachings about Christ in the bible haven't been studied and 'approved' by prophets.

 

I've studied and approved the NT too. That doesn't make me responsible for its contents, which predate me by a good number of years.

My point is, the world didn't find out about Jesus through the efforts of prophets. It was actually through the efforts of lay Christians. Kind of inspiring, when you think about it.

Certainly, prophets have interpreted and amplified the message since then.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

I've studied and approved the NT too. That doesn't make me responsible for its contents, which predate me by a good number of years.

My point is, the world didn't find out about Jesus through the efforts of prophets. It was actually through the efforts of lay Christians. Kind of inspiring, when you think about it.

Certainly, prophets have interpreted and amplified the message since then.

You're not a prophet, so it's not surprising that you have no authority or responsibility over the content of scripture.  

We'll have to agree to disagree about the rest.  

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Abraham Lincoln was not that interested in freeing slaves.  His focus was on preserving the country.  For Lincoln, slaves were a means to an end, and he frankly stated that he would use them whatever way would best serve his purpose.  In a letter to Horace Greeley Lincoln stated-

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

 

The quote below is from the article in the OP. I agree that President Lincoln was very concerned about saving the Union but he was definitely against slavery, he just needed to walk a fine line or else our country could have been split in two. Also, I don't see anywhere that President Lincoln went in and killed people and took the ones left as slaves, so there is no comparison in my book. 

Indian slave trade[edit]

See also: Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas

Mormons also were confronted in Utah with the practice of the Indian slave trade among regional tribes; it was very prevalent in the area. Tribes often took captives from enemies in raids or warfare, and used them as slaves or sold them. As the Mormons began expanding into Indian territory, they often had conflicts with the local residents. After expanding into Utah Valley, Young issued the extermination order against the Timpanogos, resulting in the Battle at Fort Utah. The Mormons took many Timpanogo women and children into slavery. Some were able to escape, but many died in slavery.[61] After expanding into Parowan, Mormons attacked a group of Indians, killing around 25 men and taking the women and children as slaves.[62]:274

 

 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're not a prophet, so it's not surprising that you have no authority or responsibility over the content of scripture.  

We'll have to agree to disagree about the rest.  

Given that time is linear, my endorsement is just as relevant as prophetic endorsement when it comes to making this information about Jesus available to the world.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't know, Bobbieaware. Am I a prophet? Are you? Sure, why not?

I'm speaking in the sense that the word prophet is normally used in church. These were highly educated lay members of the church. Not apostles. Each of them had different beliefs about Jesus. Each of them had a different agenda. They had common sources they were drawing upon (Q & Mark mainly), and they each gave us their unique theological spin on Jesus. "John" was arguably from a different sect than the others (in fact all of them had different beliefs about Jesus), and also the furthest removed from the Jesus of history. So if you're willing to call people like Richard Bushman and Greg Prince and the local baptist minister down the street prophets, sure, they were prophets. But they weren't prophets in the same sense as Isaiah or Joseph Smith.

 

Isaiah and Joseph Smith are two such examples.

So you close you eyes and ignore the validity of the easily demonstrated Apostolic Church Era practice of non-apostolic Church leaders being referred to as prophets, and then attempt to nullify this inconvenient and easily proven truth by resorting to a line of reductio ad absurdum argumentation that fails to logically establish your point. Your reduction to absurdity argument doesn’t work because the New Testament doesn’t say every member of the  Church is a prophet, only that there were Church leaders in that day who were not apostles but who were understood by all to be prophets.

The writers of the New Testament gospels had no more their own private agendas and beliefs than do the apostles of the Church today. And  I will take the word of the prophets of God over the presumptuous and uninspired thinking of so-called scholars. This is what a prophet of God had to say about whether or not the New Testament is an inspired, harmonious and theologically cohesive compendium of sacred writtings.

11 But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word (the Bible), which shall have already gone forth among them.

12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. (2 Nephi 3)

Again, I realize the testimony of Nephi probably holds little weight with you because you don’t believe he ever existed, but I cite his words concerning the divinity of Bible and the Book of Mormon for the benefit of others who might read this post.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Bobbieaware