God, the prophet and slavery

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

Not from my perspective. 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not from my perspective. 

What role are you saying prophets had in this? Giving an ex post facto stamp of approval? That horse left the barn many centuries ago.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

Generally they didn't go around calling every lay member of the church a prophet. Do you have any evidence at all that these anonymous writers were considered prophets? You can't assert something into existence, you know. None of the gospel writers refer to themselves as prophets, and none of the other NT writers make your assertion either.

 

22 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The writers of the New Testament gospels had no more their own private agendas and beliefs than do the apostles of the Church today.

They did have their own private agendas, just like apostles of the church today do (and just like every human being who ever lived does). Each of them had a slightly different Christology (and John had a radically different Christology)

 

 

22 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

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.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

None of this contradicts anything I've been saying in the slightest.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

What role are you saying prophets had in this? Giving an ex post facto stamp of approval? That horse left the barn many centuries ago.

Like I said, prophets have existed since Adam.

[Gray]

Just now, bluebell said:

Like I said, prophets have existed since Adam.

Yes, and...? Prophets didn't write the gospels. The gospels are just a collection of stories the communities were telling about Jesus.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Yes, and...? Prophets didn't write the gospels. The gospels are just a collection of stories the communities were telling about Jesus.

We aren't just talking about the gospels.  The OT also teaches us about Christ.  Besides that though, I don't believe that the gospels are just a collection of stories like you do.  I believe the gospels contain the experiences and teachings of prophets.  Whether they were written down by prophets or other disciples of Christ, I don't see that that limits their connection to prophets.

[snowflake]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We aren't just talking about the gospels.  The OT also teaches us about Christ.  Besides that though, I don't believe that the gospels are just a collection of stories like you do.  I believe the gospels contain the experiences and teachings of prophets.  Whether they were written down by prophets or other disciples of Christ, I don't see that that limits their connection to prophets.

But that clearly is not the case, Matthew was a tax collector, Luke a physician, Paul a Pharasee. These guys never claimed to be prophets, only followers of Christ. 

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, snowflake said:

But that clearly is not the case, Matthew was a tax collector, Luke a physician, Paul a Pharasee. These guys never claimed to be prophets, only followers of Christ. 

Wow. Paul did not claim to have the spirit of God in him? He did not prophesy? Maybe not Matthew so much. Luke was apparently not called as an apostle. He was probably a seventy. Paul and John both gave us prophecies. Matthew and Mark communicated prophecies of Jesus to us. The apostles met together, and decided doctrine of the Church - circumcision or no? etc.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, snowflake said:

But that clearly is not the case, Matthew was a tax collector, Luke a physician, Paul a Pharasee. These guys never claimed to be prophets, only followers of Christ. 

We disagree about the role of ordained apostles in Christ's church.  You see them as no different than any other follower of Christ.  I don't believe the bible supports that interpretation.

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, snowflake said:

But that clearly is not the case, Matthew was a tax collector, Luke a physician, Paul a Pharasee. These guys never claimed to be prophets, only followers of Christ. 

That's at best an argument from silence. We have no record of what they claimed. We know from Acts that at least some people were called prophets. (Acts 13) That appears to include to Paul and Barnabas at minimum. I'd say that by other passages like 1 Cor 14:29 or 1 Cor 12:28 that it was likely they'd have considered themselves prophets. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Mars]

prophet = speaks for God, reveals His secrets.  with authority to do so and sanctioned by God.

when the intended audience is the entire world, then you typically refer to that person as THE prophet. 

the 12 were always special witnesses, functioning as prophets.  their missions to israel and as far as they could travel are the source of the teachings passed down orally or transcribed and copied that became the earliest writings of the new testament manuscripts.  that many texts were promulgated, copied, saved, and curated by lay Christians is beside the point: the origin of the content came from those whom the Savior called to be His special witnesses.  in short, they were prophets.

[Mars]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

That's an argument from silence. We have no record of what they claimed. We know from Acts that at least some people were called prophets. (Acts 13) That appears to apply to Paul and Barnabas at minimum.

or Peter screaming at the top of his lungs to the crowd in Acts 2

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Mars said:

or Peter screaming at the top of his lungs to the crowd in Acts 2

Yup. Although that's different from calling himself a prophet. But clearly Luke in Acts 2 sees it as the fulfillment of Joel where people prophesy. If to prophesy is to be a prophet then clearly Luke considers Peter and the others prophets.

[Mars]

the records on organization from that time are scant.  we don't have a doctrine and covenants for the NT church, just epistles for doctrine, practice, and behavior, revelations, and the 4 Gospels outlining the life, miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

mormons want to retroapply the term 'prophet' to anyone who quacks like one in the OT and NT -- given the absence procedural records of what exactly a 'prophet' says and does for the times, and given our truth claims, i find this to be a reasonable assertion.  not the only reasonable assertion, but a reasonable one.

not wanting to forget what this whole thread is about, though, i think it most definitely applies: people learn about Jesus from prophets.  when you're preaching of Jesus you're filled with the spirit of prophecy and that makes you a prophet.  when you have all the keys to the priesthood, that same spirit of prophecy, and your purview is the entire world, you are THE prophet.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

 

 

I don't have the books that quote is referencing, so i can't speak to it's accuracy.  I've read other things on the subject, and they haven't matched that interpretation.  Quotes dealing with the battle at the fort (concerning those indians who were captured) suggest something different.

From one of the men who was there-

The orders of the men at the time were to “go to the Utah Valley against some Indians who had been stealing a lot of horses from Brigham's herd.” and  “to take such measures as would put a final end to their [Indian] depredations in future.” 

When it was discovered that the horses hadn't been stolen, their orders were changed to carrying out the same act to keep the Native Americans from stealing cattle.  (I'm not saying that that was a good or honorable way to handle things, but it wasn't an extermination order that I can see.  The men came in contact with other Native Americans from that tribe while they were hunting for this party and did not try to harm them, for example).

After the battle, this was recorded by one of the men there-

We told him (Little Chief) that the women and children were going home with us and that we would give them good clothing, plenty to eat, and houses to live in...All received homes, were made to clean themselves, and were clothed and fed like whites. All that submission and apparent content lasted but a few days, and they disappeared like young quails.[5]

Captain Scott...promised that if the bereft families would come to Salt Lake, they would be kindly treated and cared for by the settlers there...True to the promise, the mothers and children were taken care of for a time. In one or two instances, it is said, orphaned papooses were kept and reared by the (Mormon) pioneers. Other children with their mothers later returned to the red people.

(Again, i'm not saying that that was a good policy or how the Native Americans viewed it.)

Another quote about the mormons and native american slavery-

When utah became a territory in 1850 brigham became both governor and superintendent of indian on 13 may 1851, Young advised the mormon affairs people- "...to buy up lamanite indian children as fas they could and educate them and teach them the gospel so that many generations would not away ere they should become a white and delightsome people and the Lord could not have devised a better plan than that to have put us where we are in order to in order to accomplish that thing."

Mormons were introduced to buying Native American slaves because, like the article you linked to stated, Native American slave traders would torture or kill captives in front of them until the people agreed to buy them.  BY seemed to believe (similar to Lincoln) that the best way to keep peace was to use the slave trade to his advantage.  He then believed that such slaves could be 'redeemed' by accepting the gospel.

 

[Mars]

slavery was alive and well in Jesus' time, yet He never spoke a word against it

[Calm]

4 hours 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? 

Outside of emancipation, do you know what Lincoln's efforts were to provide or support freed blacks to able to live physically and financially secure lives? (I don't think it is the government's role to help with emotionally healthy, so while I will include that for the Church, I don't think it of value to expect to hear about any such plans from Lincoln...though if anyone has that info, it would be interesting to read)?

Physical freedom without a home or income could be an endless misery or even death sentence.

What were Brigham Young's views and actions in these areas; while not taking the final step of emancipation, he did enact some laws affecting the treatment of slaves.  Did he also set up a system whether through the territorial government, the Church, or his personal efforts to ensure slaves weren't given freedom as a way to dispose of them when no longer wanted?  

I don't think just taking one act and using that as a comparison is either fair or wise especially if one ignores intent and motivations for that act.  You could end up applauding someone who insisted owners freed their slaves in order to be able to drive all blacks out of their community because they believed any interaction between races was vile (I am not suggesting Lincoln had anything but admirable motives, it has been too long since I studied this, though I do believe he was a pragmatic man in many ways).

Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Mars said:

slavery was alive and well in Jesus' time, yet He never spoke a word against it

That we know of.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We aren't just talking about the gospels.  The OT also teaches us about Christ.

I see. Yes, the OT definitely teaches about the messiah, and that definitely comes from prophets. But that doesn't tell us about the life of Jesus.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

 Besides that though, I don't believe that the gospels are just a collection of stories like you do.

That's exactly what they are though. Explicitly! Matthew and Luke for instance base most of their information either on Mark or on a common "Q" source. None of the writers even hint that they were prophets or heard their information from prophets.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

 I believe the gospels contain the experiences and teachings of prophets.  Whether they were written down by prophets or other disciples of Christ, I don't see that that limits their connection to prophets.

Where is this belief coming from? Is it personal to you?

[Mars]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

That we know of.

totally agreed

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Where is this belief coming from? Is it personal to you?

No, i don't think the belief that the NT (along with the OT) contains divine revelations and teachings is personal or unique to me.  It's what the church teaches.

[MDalby]

How might this verse apply to this thread?

 

Quote

 5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
 6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
(2 Nephi 1:5-6)

 

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, i don't think the belief that the NT (along with the OT) contains divine revelations and teachings is personal or unique to me.  It's what the church teaches.

Does the church teach that the gospel writers were prophets? Generally they tend to default to the traditional assumptions about the authors (which have no historical basis). But even then, Luke is supposed to be a physician and Mark was a disciple of Peter. The other two were supposedly apostles (vanishingly unlikely).

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

Does the church teach that the gospel writers were prophets? Generally they tend to default to the traditional assumptions about the authors (which have no historical basis). But even then, Luke is supposed to be a physician and Mark was a disciple of Peter. The other two were supposedly apostles (vanishingly unlikely).

No, I don't think they do.  The church does teach that apostles are generally prophets though.

And like i said before, whether or not the authors of the gospels were prophets themselves does not change (in my perspective) the fact that the books contain the experiences and teachings of prophets.  

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, MDalby said:

How might this verse apply to this thread?

 

 

I have always wondered about this scripture in regards to the African slave trade.