God, the prophet and slavery

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

But that covers only 2/4 gospels

 

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I don't recall ever encountering this teaching in church. The gospels are supposed to contain the teachings and story of Jesus.

 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

But that covers only 2/4 gospels

 

Yes, i know.  As I said before, I don't believe that the books needed to be written by apostles or prophets to contain the experiences and teachings of prophets and apostles.  

Quote

The gospels are supposed to contain the teachings and story of Jesus.

They do, as they were experienced by Christ's disciples and apostles.

Seriously, can we just agree to disagree?  This is getting silly.

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, i know.  As I said before, I don't believe that the books needed to be written by apostles or prophets to contain the experiences and teachings of prophets and apostles.  

They do, as they were experienced by Christ's disciples and apostles.

Seriously, can we just agree to disagree?  This is getting silly.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I still don't think I quite understand what you're getting at, but it's probably not worth another 500 words of debate

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I still don't think I quite understand what you're getting at, but it's probably not worth another 500 words of debate

Those who walked by Jesus' side were apostles.  Lds generally think of apostles as prophets.  Anything done in private with the apostles or from their POV would have had to been relayed to the writers by the apostles themselves or by people the apostles told (if not a creation of the writer).  They were probably in the LDS view the source of most of the stories that were told that involved them in the public.  They were also likely the ones who Jesus told of what happened to him while he was alone and this was then placed in the scriptures through the scribes. Thus the stories are primarily of Jesus, but also of the apostles who he taught and guided and inspired and who he left in charge of his work as well as the others who surrounded and interacted with all of them.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Those who walked by Jesus' side were apostles.  Lds generally think of apostles as prophets.  Anything done in private with the apostles or from their POV would have had to been relayed to the writers by the apostles themselves or by people the apostles told (if not a creation of the writer).  They were probably in the LDS view the source of most of the stories that were told that involved them in the public.  They were also likely the ones who Jesus told of what happened to him while he was alone and this was then placed in the scriptures through the scribes. Thus the stories are primarily of Jesus, but also of the apostles who he taught and guided and inspired and who he left in charge of his work as well as the others who surrounded and interacted with all of them.

Hmm, certainly some parts of the oral traditions would have originated with apostles and other disciples who knew Jesus. But these were being circulated for decades in various communities before the evangelists finally wrote some of them down (augmenting them with their own theological ideas). By that time the stories were really more crowd-sourced than they were some kind of prophetic recitation of events.

ETA: I suppose in the traditional biographies of the evangelists, Mark at least would have just been writing down Peter's memoirs. So maybe that helps me see where she was coming from, even though of course those traditional biographies have no historical merit.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Gray

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Hmm, certainly some parts of the oral traditions would have originated with apostles and other disciples who knew Jesus. But these were being circulated for decades in various communities before the evangelists finally wrote some of them down (augmenting them with their own theological ideas). By that time the stories were really more crowd-sourced than they were some kind of prophetic recitation of events.

I'm sure it's difficult for LDS members to hear what you have to say here. Our church's foundations rely heavily on prophets/apostles from the Bible, not EV's augmentation of their own theological ideas or crowd-sourced prophetic recitations. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure it's difficult for LDS members to hear what you have to say here. Our church's foundations rely heavily on prophets/apostles from the Bible, not EV's augmentation of their own theological ideas or crowd-sourced prophetic recitations. 

Sure. Conservative Christians I chat with have the same reaction. This stuff isn't widely talked about in most congregations.

[kiwi57]

21 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Actually Lincoln, like Brigham, had no intention of interfering with slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was a "military necessity."

[kiwi57]

On 1/10/2018 at 12:49 PM, Tacenda said:

Thanks for posting this topic Rain. Not sure if it will get much traffic because what's done is done.

I'm sad that I didn't know about this piece of history until recently. I really just want to right so many wrongs that have left humans devastated. I'm angry that Utah allowed it. I'm angry that members of the LDS church allowed it, and people simply had no clue!

How can humans act this way and say they are Christian? Even those in the Bible? I guess I get easily offended at how people are treated when all they did was be born. I really can't believe a prophet of God could act this way. But understand how people are sheep, and we need more goats (heard a talk about this recently, being goats). I know that the peoples of this earth continually kill or enslave others to this day.

Again, I just wanted my voice heard because I noticed on the other thread there was mostly silence. Do we give BY a pass? Do we need to step away from the "follow the prophet" mantra? Or are we safe in thinking another prophet won't lead us astray as BY did, IMO. 

Thank you for your opinion.

It's wrong, but thank you anyway.

My first thought: There is nothing easier - i.e nothing that requires less thought, less effort, less talent, less knowledge, less character, and pretty much less of anything that matters - than to criticise someone long dead for doing something that we don't do any more. Absolutely any living mediocrity can preen herself about being so much more in sync with current social mores than absolutely any dead hero, however tremendous their achievements or sterling their character.

My second thought is that it's also quite easy to go off half-cocked as soon as we get a little bit of a factoid in our hands. "BRIGHAM APPROVED OF SLAVERY!" we can scream with delighted horror. (Or horrified delight.) But once we calm down, we have to ask: well, did he? Did he really?

Well no. He didn't.

He permitted slavery in Utah because he didn't think that his powers as territorial governor allowed him to prohibit it.

That's it.

And no, he didn't "lead the Church astray" when he permitted it. He didn't teach it or encourage it or compel it.  The Utah legislature, under his leadership, passed laws that provided protections for slaves that were not found elsewhere, including punishing their owners with forfeiture if they mistreated them.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Thank you for your opinion.

It's wrong, but thank you anyway.

My first thought: There is nothing easier - i.e nothing that requires less thought, less effort, less talent, less knowledge, less character, and pretty much less of anything that matters - than to criticise someone long dead for doing something that we don't do any more. Absolutely any living mediocrity can preen herself about being so much more in sync with current social mores than absolutely any dead hero, however tremendous their achievements or sterling their character.

My second thought is that it's also quite easy to go off half-cocked as soon as we get a little bit of a factoid in our hands. "BRIGHAM APPROVED OF SLAVERY!" we can scream with delighted horror. (Or horrified delight.) But once we calm down, we have to ask: well, did he? Did he really?

Well no. He didn't.

He permitted slavery in Utah because he didn't think that his powers as territorial governor allowed him to prohibit it.

That's it.

And no, he didn't "lead the Church astray" when he permitted it. He didn't teach it or encourage it or compel it.  The Utah legislature, under his leadership, passed laws that provided protections for slaves that were not found elsewhere, including punishing their owners with forfeiture if they mistreated them.

In denial Kiwi? 

IMO, that could be you. Did you read the wiki article? Brigham exterminated people. Learned this just today because I hadn't read as throughly as before, maybe you have the same situation and didn't know, but I do want some imput on why LDS seem to not be bothered. And I apparently got my answer as far as you are concerned. So just because someone is dead, we don't talk about it? 

ETA: Have you read the entire article? If you had you probably wouldn't have said half of what you did to me. Oh, and I just love how you think you know me. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Tacenda

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In denial Kiwi? 

IMO, that could be you. Did you read the wiki article? Brigham exterminated people. Learned this just today because I hadn't read as throughly as before, maybe you have the same situation and didn't know, but I do want some imput on why LDS seem to not be bothered. And I apparently got my answer as far as you are concerned. So just because someone is dead, we don't talk about it? 

ETA: Have you read the entire article? If you had you probably wouldn't have said half of what you did to me. Oh, and I just love how you think you know me. 

Wikipedia is not bad for a starting place to know what questions might be useful to ask, but you really should read actual historical works especially if you are going so vigorously condemn someone.  Would you approve of someone condemning your family member based on what might be written on Wikipedia or would you want someone to go into the background and original sources?

[snowflake]

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

I have no doubt that they obviously had been chosen by the Holy Spirit and were filled with the Holy Spirit to document, witness and record much of the Lord Jesus' ministry.

Paul and John yes they were called as apostles, but not Matthew and Luke, none the less they were tasked with very specific roles as witnesses and to document these events.  Matthew was a tax collector so he was probably very gifted at shorthand and documentation/organization of documents and recording transactions.  

John wrote Revelation and clearly is prophecy of things to come. Paul i'm not so sure about prophesy, i can't think of any off hand but he probably did. 

I think we might be talking past each other with the term "prophecy and prophet"? 

[snowflake]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

The NT church apostles were direct eyewitnesses the the Lord Jesus,  I certainly see them and their roles differently than the current LDS "apostles", no doubt.   

On a side note, do the current LDS appostles ever claim to be direct eyewitnesses? 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The NT church apostles were direct eyewitnesses the the Lord Jesus,  I certainly see them and their roles differently than the current LDS "apostles", no doubt.   

On a side note, do the current LDS appostles ever claim to be direct eyewitnesses? 

Were the new apostles that were ordained after Christ's death direct eye witnesses of Him in the NT?  I honestly can't remember and don't have time to look it up right now.

As for LDS apostles, they have in the past and claim to be special witnesses of Christ.  Many members believe that they have seen Christ personally but the apostles have never (as far as I know) publicly confirmed such (though some do speak in ways that seem to imply it).

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In denial Kiwi? 

IMO, that could be you. Did you read the wiki article? Brigham exterminated people. Learned this just today because I hadn't read as throughly as before, maybe you have the same situation and didn't know, but I do want some imput on why LDS seem to not be bothered. And I apparently got my answer as far as you are concerned. So just because someone is dead, we don't talk about it? 

ETA: Have you read the entire article? If you had you probably wouldn't have said half of what you did to me. Oh, and I just love how you think you know me. 

While it could be true I have suspicions about the motivations and intentions of someone who decides to write a wiki article about Mormons and slavery. They might, just might, have an agenda and a goal.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Were the new apostles that were ordained after Christ's death direct eye witnesses of Him in the NT?  I honestly can't remember and don't have time to look it up right now.

Mathias, who replaced Judas yes, Paul too.  

[cinepro]

FYI, here's a take on the Green Flake story offered by someone well-versed in Church history over at Reddit

 

Quote

Oh we need to talk about Green Flake.

I do a tour of the Utah Daughters of Pioneers museum where they have a picture of Green Flake displayed.

The fun part is that Brigham really wasn't involved. The woman who owned the slave was behind on her tithing and also in financial trouble. She had a clever idea. Brigham had taught that slaves were property, and people were able to donate property in lieu of cash in those days; so she donated the slave figuring his labor would be worth about as much as her tithing year after year.

She never paid tithing in money or kind after that.

But the Church office building had no way to receive a person as tithing. There was no system for it. But to argue against it, would be to argue that Brigham was wrong, so they had to accept the person as tithing.

Green was set to work as a Janitor around the COB, but again, there was no "Slave duty" and so he made everyone there awkward. It forced the office employees to see a slave working for no or little pay every day.

After two years, Green was given his freedom. The best part though is that they lied, straight up, to the woman, telling her he was doing a good job and her tithing was covered, rather than broach the issue.

It is my belief that having many of the office staff work with a slave is what helped reverse the church's position on slavery post Brigham's death.

Green stayed faithful and always saw that God had released him from slavery.

 

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

As for LDS apostles, they have in the past and claim to be special witnesses of Christ.  Many members believe that they have seen Christ personally but the apostles have never (as far as I know) publicly confirmed such (though some do speak in ways that seem to imply it).

But how do the LDS Apostles live their lives? Don't they all live in Salt Lake in nice homes with a nice salary? All married? No mission trips since their 20's? When you compare and contrast the NT Apostles with the LDS apostles there is literally no comparison, All NT apostles are clearly direct witnesses of the Lord Jesus, almost all of the NT apostles are martyred in some brutal way, they spent their entire lives going out into the word, preaching Christ risen, and are killed for their witness of Christ. LDS Apostles......not so much. 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, snowflake said:

But how do the LDS Apostles live their lives? Don't they all live in Salt Lake in nice homes with a nice salary? All married? No mission trips since their 20's? When you compare and contrast the NT Apostles with the LDS apostles there is literally no comparison, All NT apostles are clearly direct witnesses of the Lord Jesus, almost all of the NT apostles are martyred in some brutal way, they spent their entire lives going out into the word, preaching Christ risen, and are killed for their witness of Christ. LDS Apostles......not so much. 

We know that the lifestyle of the apostles during Jesus' life was to rely entirely on the kindness of strangers for food and lodging. About their life after Jesus' crucifixion, we know very little. We don't know that they were martyred either - that's later tradition (as I understand it). Not denying that it's possible.

[RevTestament]

55 minutes ago, snowflake said:

But how do the LDS Apostles live their lives? Don't they all live in Salt Lake in nice homes with a nice salary? All married? No mission trips since their 20's? When you compare and contrast the NT Apostles with the LDS apostles there is literally no comparison, All NT apostles are clearly direct witnesses of the Lord Jesus, almost all of the NT apostles are martyred in some brutal way, they spent their entire lives going out into the word, preaching Christ risen, and are killed for their witness of Christ. LDS Apostles......not so much. 

The times they are a changin. 

Rev 6:

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Revelation 20:4

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and ^ajudgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and ^breigned with Christ a ^cthousand years.

While I really don't like to be the warner of "bad news" it seems the millennium is not a time of all peaches and cream ice cream. The question is which side will you be on?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

But how do the LDS Apostles live their lives? Don't they all live in Salt Lake in nice homes with a nice salary? All married? No mission trips since their 20's? When you compare and contrast the NT Apostles with the LDS apostles there is literally no comparison, All NT apostles are clearly direct witnesses of the Lord Jesus, almost all of the NT apostles are martyred in some brutal way, they spent their entire lives going out into the word, preaching Christ risen, and are killed for their witness of Christ. LDS Apostles......not so much. 

They travel all the time, visiting people all over the world.  My grandmother lived in the Prophet's ward for 18 months (quite a few years ago) and he never went to church in the ward once during that time.  He was always visiting other areas.

But I don't think that the bible teaches that the only way to be an apostle is to live like a 1 century Jew.

Edited January 11, 2018 by bluebell

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

FYI, here's a take on the Green Flake story offered by someone well-versed in Church history over at Reddit

Well, the link is from LDS.org, so is reliable. I enjoyed reading it. I have pointed out on this board before, and it didn't seem to catch at all, that BY reversed the Church policy regarding slavery, and didn't follow JS in this regard. However, it is good to see that in this instance, the Church didn't really follow BY's lead, and gave Flake his freedom. I don't really feel BY was pro-slavery - he was, I think, trying to keep UT out of the Civil War.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

The NT church apostles were direct eyewitnesses the the Lord Jesus,  I certainly see them and their roles differently than the current LDS "apostles", no doubt.   

On a side note, do the current LDS appostles ever claim to be direct eyewitnesses? 

Some have, yes. Lorenzo Snow had a vision of the Savior. There have been a few others besides JS. BTW where did Paul ever claim to have seen Jesus? He wrote about half of our NT, and yet although he was a strong apostle, never claimed to be a witness to any of the Savior's life. Like Lorenzo Snow, he saw the Savior in vision. And we really have no such evidence of any of the later apostles of the early Church being direct eyewitnesses at all. Is that really important? Does one need to see the Savior to be his apostle? I pose to you that we have all seen the Savior before, but just don't remember it. Nevertheless, many have not and will not see him, and yet have and will die for Him.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

We know that the lifestyle of the apostles during Jesus' life was to rely entirely on the kindness of strangers for food and lodging. About their life after Jesus' crucifixion, we know very little. We don't know that they were martyred either - that's later tradition (as I understand it). Not denying that it's possible.

Not exactly strangers in many cases.  Sounds like they stayed with friends and family members a lot.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

I have no doubt that they obviously had been chosen by the Holy Spirit and were filled with the Holy Spirit to document, witness and record much of the Lord Jesus' ministry.

Paul and John yes they were called as apostles, but not Matthew and Luke, none the less they were tasked with very specific roles as witnesses and to document these events.  Matthew was a tax collector so he was probably very gifted at shorthand and documentation/organization of documents and recording transactions.  

John wrote Revelation and clearly is prophecy of things to come. Paul i'm not so sure about prophesy, i can't think of any off hand but he probably did. 

I think we might be talking past each other with the term "prophecy and prophet"? 

Matthew 9:9

9 ¶ And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named ^aMatthew, sitting at the ^breceipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

I definitely believe Matthew was the same who was an apostle. I believe Matthew to be one of the first gospels written, and believe early claims that it was first written in Hebrew or probably Aramaic.

Paul definitely prophesied. See 2 Timothy 4:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

He also prophesied about the son of Perdition. He prophesied regarding the apostasy to come and even the restoration which was to come before the return of our Savior. You would do well to acquaint yourself with these prophecies of Paul.