Activism toward the Church; talk by Ahmad S. Corbitt of YM General Presidency

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think it was simply not prudent for the Church at that time to treat the blacks as equals. There would not only have been pressure from the outside but from the inside as well, since at the time most people, including many church members, regarded them as nothing more than slaves. Kind of like how the word of wisdom evolved. President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits. 
Similarly the church and the world needed time to temper their racist attitudes before they could accept the blacks as equals.

Thank you. I agree on both counts.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, gav said:

Has anybody from the "American bubble" bothered to look outside the bubble to consider what was going on, on the African continent and is now going on, on the African continent with regards to its colonial liberation, apartheid, the cold war, to current exceptionally rapid growth areas of the church. This was a policy specific to some of the peoples of Africa and it's diaspora not simply to general persons of colour.

Is the American church aware the Judah is coming up with much higher percentages in the lineage declarations of patriarchal blessings across the African continent?

Are they aware that in certain "areas" in Africa that the church is growing at a record pace only matched by the kirtland era of church history?

Are they aware that significant dates relating to the ban match up well to the collapse of the Soviet Union and opening up of the eastern bloc where many of the other ten tribes are disproportionately represented in lineage declarations.

The first temple in Africa(Apartheid Johannesburg) and also the the first temple behind the Iron Curtain(East Germany) with dedicated in exactly the same year 1985. The ban precedes the first temple in Africa by the significant cycle of 7 years.

The lamanites are on the move across the US southern border in record numbers. Africa is on the rise containing remnants of scattered Judah. Jerusalem is finally the recognised capital of Israel since 2017 followed by the Abraham accords. 2017 is a 50 year Jubilee cycle after 1967 when Jerusalem and the Temple Mount was captured in the six day war, which was another 50 year Jubilee cycle after the Balfour Declaration when the British empire declared Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. The Ancient Jubilee commemoration was given for the liberation and restoration of the land to the inheritance lineages. The Balfour Declaration was a 3 1/2 year cycle after the July crisis and beginning of World War I which would result ultimately in the collapse of 4 imperial empires.  World War II was a natural outgrowth of the first and resulted in the final demise of the rest of the Imperial empires of Europe and the rise of the two spheres of influence during the Cold War era. This status quo only ended with the demise of the Soviet Union resulting in a single globalised world with the US at its head. There is now war and displacement of many in Eastern Europe with more to come where many of the 10 tribes are potentially sitting. The church is in decline amongst those of European descent, its traditional stronghold. The Gentiles (Europeans and colonies) nurtured the beginning of the latter-day gathering but that gathering has moved on to a new phase.

The times of the Gentiles is clearly over and the next pieces of the chessboard are on the move.

The ban had little to do with race and far more to do with the Lord's timing for the latter days. Joseph's 10 brothers came down to meet him in Egypt during a time of famine, a shortage of wheat. Ukraine and Russia are the lands north of Syria(Assyria) and Israel and one of the major wheat baskets of the world. This war has plunged the Western world into all kinds of economic and energy famine. Nuclear incidents in this war have the potential to really set people on the move and disrupt global food security. Is this how the 10 tribes return to the land of Joseph's (Lehi's) inheritance? See President Hinckley's three talks emphasising Joseph's interpretation of pharaoh's dream given over a seven year period from 1998 to 2005. September 11 to the 2008 global financial crisis was a 7 year period and the global economy continues to reel with de-globalization an increasingly inevitable result.

The ever growing political polarisation and turmoil in the US is also no coincidence... we are watching Book of Mormon and latter day prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes while people quibble about a few ultimately irrelevant social justice stumbling blocks. If the nations of this earth were to lift their focus away from the mundane and the distracting, for even a few minutes, they might perceive the vast cycles of heaven in motion marching to the tick of the Lord's clock.

We do live in interesting times. 

14 hours ago, gav said:

 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

How long does it usually take a man to rise from priest to apostle these days?

Oh, only about 50 or 60 years. Unfortunately, my window of opportunity  has passed. 😉

Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Snodgrassian]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I believe that the purpose of the ban was to spare the Church as much as possible from the divisive tensions surrounding slavery, the Civil War, the so-called Restoration period which I think was mostly a failure, and many other difficulties, until the 13th Amendment could actually be become effective. Then the Church could grow and expand without the rancor that could and would have occurred. It took some time for the US and also the Church to sort out the mess, but when we were ready, it was lifted by revelation. Others may disagree. I’m ok with that.

Did churches that integrated earlier suffer any major consequences based on these "divisive tensions surrounding slavery, the Civil War, the so-called Restoration period" ? Would the "bad" from these outside sources be worse than worthy saints not receiving the fulness of the gospel and all associated blessings? 

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

It seems so strange though to see this argument when we went ahead and did the opposite for plural marriage and even were willing to destroy the Church over it if the Lord desired. Why was plural marriage not a bridge too far, but equality for blacks was?  Plural marriage was not in the least “prudent”.  

I think though the Church felt it had a legitimate case with Plural marriage being an important part of their religious beliefs and should therefore be protected and supported by the first amendment.
To them it was prudent to follow God's command even if the principle was not popular in the world.

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Seriously is right. Do you know which group of people was most ready to have the priesthood ban lifted in 1969? Black members of the Church.

The Church shouldn't be lagging behind on issues of moral justice, it should be at the forefront of appropriate change. I stand by my claims. We will have to agree to disagree.

Yes, seriously. It is an absurd assertion, but I’m glad you stick to your guns.

I was there when it all hit the fan.

I knew black members who were affected by the ban then. Their faith and patience far exceeded mine. Their reward will certainly be greater.

There are and have been billions of moral injustices every single day. That’s what the Atonement is for. I’m happy that the Church addresses them.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Did churches that integrated earlier suffer any major consequences based on these "divisive tensions surrounding slavery, the Civil War, the so-called Restoration period" ? Would the "bad" from these outside sources be worse than worthy saints not receiving the fulness of the gospel and all associated blessings? 

If I remember my history correctly, other American churches were not driven from their homes multiple times, beaten, killed, persecuted, prosecuted, jailed, reviled, ridiculed, and more during that very time. In fact, I believe they were often at the forefront of the animus against the Saints.

Here in Kentucky, a neutral state, bloody battles were fought to win it over to either side. It’s possible that adding virulent racial and slavery components to the mix would have worsened the situation for the Church even in exile. The government pursued them with military force because of polygamy. Why not over slavery?

Slavery became an issue in my home state of New Mexico (then a territory). Both sides annexed it and tried to control it. Several battles were fought there, of all places, far removed from the main conflicts.

How do you see it?

Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think it was simply not prudent for the Church at that time to treat the blacks as equals. There would not only have been pressure from the outside but from the inside as well, since at the time most people, including many church members, regarded them as nothing more than slaves. Kind of like how the word of wisdom evolved. President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits. 
Similarly the church and the world needed time to temper their racist attitudes before they could accept the blacks as equals.

Is that what the church is all about? Avoiding pressure for doing the right thing?  What about the churches and organizations that were contemporary with the Utah church but opposed and worked against the evils slavery , such as the Quakers, Christian abolitionist movement, and the American Anti-Slavery Society (Presbyterian)?  Additionally, many Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian members freed their slaves and sponsored black congregations.  How does history remember these organizations? Much better than the LDS church with their 150 years of racist history. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Is that what the church is all about? Avoiding pressure for doing the right thing?  What about the churches and organizations that were contemporary with the Utah church but opposed and worked against the evils slavery , such as the Quakers, Christian abolitionist movement, and the American Anti-Slavery Society (Presbyterian)?  Additionally, many Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian members freed their slaves and sponsored black congregations.  How does history remember these organizations? Much better than the LDS church with their 150 years of racist history. 

Yes, one might say that if one’s view is exceedingly myopic.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for your excellent comments. Let me respond.

Why didn’t he just wait until 1978 to call a prophet, reveal the Book of Mormon,  and start the Restoration? I don’t know. It certainly would have avoided a lot the grief and death the early Saints had to suffer.

I have a problem with any theory where God bans an entire race from the mortal blessings of the temple and the priesthood to avoid acute tribulation for the church.  God is willing to allow us to face tribulation for the cause of righteousness in every other aspect of our lives, so why would this be any different.   God promises that he will protect the church as we follow after righteousness - he could have protected the church without the ban.  This theory just doesn't make sense.  I can't imagine God telling us to hide our candle under a bushel to avoid temporary tribulation.  It isn't a good game plan, and it is contrary to his teachings to place our candle on a stand and let our light shine for the whole world to see and let the consequences of acute persecution follow - for of such persecutions for righteousness sake are the blessings of heaven:

Quote

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

 I don't believe that God hid the candle or caused the salt to lose its savor for a short moment of respite from acute pain - especially considering the long-term consequences and chronic pain that resulted.

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do we know BY was lying? Do we think God let him suffer and sacrifice all he did for the Restoration only to abandon Brigham when he supposedly went rogue and invented a monumental lie? I don’t believe that for a minute. The Restoration was too important for God to ignore that. Joseph had been promptly corrected whenever he messed with the plan. Surely he would not ignore such a monumental mistake made by Joseph’s most faithful friend. I don’t believe BY snookered God by faking a revelation, neither with this nor with polygamy. If he did, then perhaps he deserves the cancellation some wish to impose on him.

BY was wrong and his words have been disavowed in just about everything he ever said about the ban.   I cannot judge if he was lying (which requires that he knew he was wrong and did it anyway).  The church has disavowed pretty much everything BY ever said about the ban as based in racist ideology/theology of the time, and when other parts of what he revealed about the ban is evidently false (that the priesthood wouldn't be restored to blacks until after the second coming of Christ), there is no good reason to accept that he wasn't also wrong about the ban itself.  All the evidence points to one conclusion.  If he was confused about when the priesthood would be given to blacks, perhaps he was confused if it should have been taken away in the first place -  yes, I said TAKEN AWAY.    God doesn't typically couch revelation between cushions of racist ideology/theology and other false prophecy.  Clearly, God allowed him to be wrong and cause monumental damage to the church.  It is not that hard to accept that God allows his prophets to make monumental mistakes and false prophecies about doctrine (Adam/God and blood atonement).  There is no good reason to hang onto the idea that the ban was from God.  The church is not even willing to go that far.  

Spencer W. Kimball was willing to accept the possibility of such human error.   There is no reason why we shouldn't be willing to accept such a possible error too.  He said in 1963:

Quote

"The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation."

 

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

God was quick to call erring Judah, Israel, Jews, Lamanites, Nephites and others to repentance. So why would he let such a colossal mistake derail the Restoration for which he had spent centuries in preparation?

God clearly allows prophets to make huge mistakes in the name of God, like saying that blacks are cursed, that they were less valiant in the pre-earth life, that they won't get the priesthood until after the second coming, that the same racial hierarchy of power will exist in the eternities, that white people who marry black people are cursed and the law requires that they and their children be killed...  Need I continue?    It is not hard to see the misguided feelings of BY on this issue, even if one dismisses his words as mere rhetoric.  Why should I believe that those same misguided feelings/beliefs towards blacks, and those same false prophecies about when blacks would receive the priesthood, are not the same misguided source of the ban.  I don't believe for a second that Joseph Smith would have rescinded the blessings of his previous actions in ordaining black people.  Why would God allow Joseph Smith to give the priesthood to black people if he didn't want them to have it?

If John Taylor's memory is to be trusted, then we must accept that when Joseph Smith heard a remark from a member that blacks should not hold the priesthood, Smith responded with the account of the Apostle Peter's vision in Acts 10, in which he was commanded by God to "not call any man common or unclean" which God has cleansed, and to bring the blessings of the gospel to the gentiles - which John Taylor saw as implying that black men should have the priesthood.  Yep, that sounds like Joseph to me.  That is exactly what BY did though, isn't it?  He did contrary to the scriptures and called black people unclean and cursed, even when God had cleansed them in baptism and already bestowed the blessings of the priesthood upon them. 

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I do not believe God was casual about the Restoration. I think the ban was according to his plan, as I have explained. he hid the Church in the wilderness where it could grow independent of the racial chaos surrounding it.

Why would he need to hide in the wilderness from racial chaos, when they were taking part in the racial chaos/filth that the rest of the world was partaking of?   They were in the wilderness for other reasons.  

I have a really hard time with the idea that God was more willing to throw black people under the bus then he was to cause his people to only have one wife in an effort to avoid persecution.   All we are doing is making up more terrible justifications for the ban that sound just as racist as all the previous efforts.  It doesn't help.  The church 

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Given the existing animus against the Saints, freed or escaping slaves going to Salt Lake in numbers would just have attracted more attention and perhaps violent interference. I believe God knew this and moved accordingly. 

God could have and would have preserved the church from such things - just like he always has. What it sounds like you are saying is that God allowed terrible persecution to happen among his black saints (even from his own prophets) in order to preserve the white saints from the same persecution.  God doesn't remove/block blessing from his faithful saints and allow them to be terribly persecuted and viewed as a curse in order to preserve his white church members from persecution.  That is outlandish.  THE BLACKS ARE HIS CHURCH TOO.    God protects his whole church, not just the whites.  If God can stop the armies of pharaoh, he could have stopped any armies and violence against the church.  He would have preserved his church either way.  This is irrefutable. He wouldn't let his church fail for being more righteous than the world.  He doesn't require that his church become more worldly to avoid persecution.  That is so contrary to anything I have ever been taught about God and the gospel. 

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The ban does not haunt me. I lived during the time it was in effect and when it was lifted. I believe God’s plans even when we don’t understand them or think he should have done things another way. They may seem odd to us especially when they may result in discomfort for his children, but if there is harm, it will be covered by the Atonement.

"...If there is harm..."???  I thought the point of the ban was to avoid harm?  

The ban may not haunt you, but it haunts countless saints.  All of the bogus explanations for the ban which throw our fellow black saints under the bus haunts us.  They have been the source of countless lost trust in our leaders ability to guide. I am not advocating for any cancelling of BY. I think he needs to be forgiven just like everyone else.  But until we stop making novel ways to justify the ban, which the church stopped doing long ago, there will be renewed harm and opened wounds.  God doesn't see a need to explain it, perhaps you should take his lead.  I think any attempt to justify and explain only causes further harm.   

 

[MrShorty]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

The ban may not haunt you, but it haunts countless saints.  All of the bogus explanations for the ban which throw our fellow black saints under the bus haunts us.  They have been the source of countless lost trust in our leaders ability to guide.

One of the things Elder Corbitt said was how ATC causes (and/or contributes to) people to lose (or fail to gain) trust in church leaders and their prophetic/apostolic calling. It's interesting to me how some of our history (with or without ATC) can cause (and/or contribute to) people to lose their trust in church leaders. What is the importance of trusting our leaders? Do we sometimes overstate the importance of trusting leaders and their prophetic/apostolic mantle? Do we sometimes understate it? Ultimately, we are supposed to place our trust in God and Christ, so what is the appropriate level of trust that we should be placing in leaders?

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

One of the things Elder Corbitt said was how ATC causes (and/or contributes to) people to lose (or fail to gain) trust in church leaders and their prophetic/apostolic calling. It's interesting to me how some of our history (with or without ATC) can cause (and/or contribute to) people to lose their trust in church leaders. What is the importance of trusting our leaders? Do we sometimes overstate the importance of trusting leaders and their prophetic/apostolic mantle? Do we sometimes understate it? Ultimately, we are supposed to place our trust in God and Christ, so what is the appropriate level of trust that we should be placing in leaders?

All very good points and questions.  In many ways, I think that we have overstated the importance of trusting our leaders, which I believe is the source of so much damage to testimony when our leaders prove to be human. 

[ksfisher]

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

One of the things Elder Corbitt said was how ATC causes (and/or contributes to) people to lose (or fail to gain) trust in church leaders and their prophetic/apostolic calling. It's interesting to me how some of our history (with or without ATC) can cause (and/or contribute to) people to lose their trust in church leaders. What is the importance of trusting our leaders? Do we sometimes overstate the importance of trusting leaders and their prophetic/apostolic mantle? Do we sometimes understate it? Ultimately, we are supposed to place our trust in God and Christ, so what is the appropriate level of trust that we should be placing in leaders?

These words from Sister Carol McConkie seem like good advice:

We are grateful for a church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”⁷ The Lord’s house is a house of order, and we need never be deceived about where to look for answers to our questions or uncertain about which voice to follow. We need not be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”⁸ God reveals His word through His ordained servants, “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”⁹ When we choose to live according to the words of the prophets, we are on the covenant path that leads to eternal perfection.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/10/live-according-to-the-words-of-the-prophets?lang=eng

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I have a problem with any theory where God bans an entire race from the mortal blessings of the temple and the priesthood to avoid acute tribulation for the church.  God is willing to allow us to face tribulation for the cause of righteousness in every other aspect of our lives, so why would this be any different.   God promises that he will protect the church as we follow after righteousness - he could have protected the church without the ban.  This theory just doesn't make sense.  I can't imagine God telling us to hide our candle under a bushel to avoid temporary tribulation.  It isn't a good game plan, and it is contrary to his teachings to place our candle on a stand and let our light shine for the whole world to see and let the consequences of acute persecution follow - for of such persecutions for righteousness sake are the blessings of heaven:

 I don't believe that God hid the candle or caused the salt to lose its savor for a short moment of respite from acute pain - especially considering the long-term consequences and chronic pain that resulted.

BY was wrong and his words have been disavowed in just about everything he ever said about the ban.   I cannot judge if he was lying (which requires that he knew he was wrong and did it anyway).  The church has disavowed pretty much everything BY ever said about the ban as based in racist ideology/theology of the time, and when other parts of what he revealed about the ban is evidently false (that the priesthood wouldn't be restored to blacks until after the second coming of Christ), there is no good reason to accept that he wasn't also wrong about the ban itself.  All the evidence points to one conclusion.  If he was confused about when the priesthood would be given to blacks, perhaps he was confused if it should have been taken away in the first place -  yes, I said TAKEN AWAY.    God doesn't typically couch revelation between cushions of racist ideology/theology and other false prophecy.  Clearly, God allowed him to be wrong and cause monumental damage to the church.  It is not that hard to accept that God allows his prophets to make monumental mistakes and false prophecies about doctrine (Adam/God and blood atonement).  There is no good reason to hang onto the idea that the ban was from God.  The church is not even willing to go that far.  

Spencer W. Kimball was willing to accept the possibility of such human error.   There is no reason why we shouldn't be willing to accept such a possible error too.  He said in 1963:

 

God clearly allows prophets to make huge mistakes in the name of God, like saying that blacks are cursed, that they were less valiant in the pre-earth life, that they won't get the priesthood until after the second coming, that the same racial hierarchy of power will exist in the eternities, that white people who marry black people are cursed and the law requires that they and their children be killed...  Need I continue?    It is not hard to see the misguided feelings of BY on this issue, even if one dismisses his words as mere rhetoric.  Why should I believe that those same misguided feelings/beliefs towards blacks, and those same false prophecies about when blacks would receive the priesthood, are not the same misguided source of the ban.  I don't believe for a second that Joseph Smith would have rescinded the blessings of his previous actions in ordaining black people.  Why would God allow Joseph Smith to give the priesthood to black people if he didn't want them to have it?

If John Taylor's memory is to be trusted, then we must accept that when Joseph Smith heard a remark from a member that blacks should not hold the priesthood, Smith responded with the account of the Apostle Peter's vision in Acts 10, in which he was commanded by God to "not call any man common or unclean" which God has cleansed, and to bring the blessings of the gospel to the gentiles - which John Taylor saw as implying that black men should have the priesthood.  Yep, that sounds like Joseph to me.  That is exactly what BY did though, isn't it?  He did contrary to the scriptures and called black people unclean and cursed, even when God had cleansed them in baptism and already bestowed the blessings of the priesthood upon them. 

Why would he need to hide in the wilderness from racial chaos, when they were taking part in the racial chaos/filth that the rest of the world was partaking of?   They were in the wilderness for other reasons.  

I have a really hard time with the idea that God was more willing to throw black people under the bus then he was to cause his people to only have one wife in an effort to avoid persecution.   All we are doing is making up more terrible justifications for the ban that sound just as racist as all the previous efforts.  It doesn't help.  The church 

God could have and would have preserved the church from such things - just like he always has. What it sounds like you are saying is that God allowed terrible persecution to happen among his black saints (even from his own prophets) in order to preserve the white saints from the same persecution.  God doesn't remove/block blessing from his faithful saints and allow them to be terribly persecuted and viewed as a curse in order to preserve his white church members from persecution.  That is outlandish.  THE BLACKS ARE HIS CHURCH TOO.    God protects his whole church, not just the whites.  If God can stop the armies of pharaoh, he could have stopped any armies and violence against the church.  He would have preserved his church either way.  This is irrefutable. He wouldn't let his church fail for being more righteous than the world.  He doesn't require that his church become more worldly to avoid persecution.  That is so contrary to anything I have ever been taught about God and the gospel. 

"...If there is harm..."???  I thought the point of the ban was to avoid harm?  

The ban may not haunt you, but it haunts countless saints.  All of the bogus explanations for the ban which throw our fellow black saints under the bus haunts us.  They have been the source of countless lost trust in our leaders ability to guide. I am not advocating for any cancelling of BY. I think he needs to be forgiven just like everyone else.  But until we stop making novel ways to justify the ban, which the church stopped doing long ago, there will be renewed harm and opened wounds.  God doesn't see a need to explain it, perhaps you should take his lead.  I think any attempt to justify and explain only causes further harm.   

 

Thank you for the thoughtful but very lengthy post. I don’t agree with most of it, but I have already stated and defended my position several times and have little interest in responding in full. I am interested in what you have to say, though.

We could start a thread about how many people have been thrown under the bus since the Creation. Sometimes by God. Perhaps we should all take His lead and ignore many contentious issues, but then we would not have much to complain about here, would we. Besides, we have spent a few days here with lots of folks trying to explain what appears to be the unexplainable (including your impassioned  post). I claim that privilege too. 

I conclude with this quote at the end of Joseph’s 1836 letter to Oliver regarding slavery, the status of the black children of God, the Abolitionists, potential violence, and other things would result from these racial problems. The bolded part has been my attitude since 1978. It is from this that I have formed my personal solution to this contentious issue. I take heed from his words which in addition to later statements show some evolution in his thinking, but certainly support what BY said later. Perhaps we should cancel Joseph too.
 

Quote

Having spoken frankly and freely [about the contentious issue of slavery], I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/3

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for the thoughtful but lengthy post. I don’t agree with most of it, but I have already stated and defended my position several times and have little to to respond. I am interested in what you have to say, though. Perhaps we should all take God’s lead on many issues, but then we would not have much to complain about here, would we.

I will conclude with this quote at the end of Joseph’s letter to a Oliver regarding slavery, the Abolitionists, potential violence, and other things would result from these racial problems. I take heed from his words which, in addition to later remarks, show an evolution in his thinking, but confirm what BY said later. 

Just to clarify, what is it exactly that you think that quote confirms about anything Joseph said about blacks and the priesthood?  Thanks for engaging.  I am interested in what you have to say as well. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for the thoughtful but very lengthy post. I don’t agree with most of it, but I have already stated and defended my position several times and have little interest in responding in full. I am interested in what you have to say, though.

We could start a thread about how many people have been thrown under the bus since the Creation. Sometimes by God. Perhaps we should all take His lead and ignore many contentious issues, but then we would not have much to complain about here, would we. Besides, we have spent a days with lots of folks trying to explain what appears to be the unexplainable (including your impassioned  post). I claim that privilege too. 

I conclude with this quote at the end of Joseph’s 1836 letter to Oliver regarding slavery, the status of the black children of God, the Abolitionists, potential violence, and other things would result from these racial problems. The bolded part has been my attitude since 1978. It is from this that I have formed my personal solution to this contentious issue. I take heed from his words which in addition to later statements show some evolution in his thinking, but certainly support what BY said later. Perhaps we should cancel Joseph too.
 

 

Edited for additional comments.

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just to clarify, what is it exactly that you think that quote confirms about anything Joseph said about blacks and the priesthood?  Thanks for engaging.  I am interested in what you have to say as well. 

I think the rest of the letter explains what he meant. I’m impressed by his appeal to both slaves and masters to treat each other kindly and eschew violence. He uses historical and scriptural sources to justify slavery, but he fears the violence ending it abruptly just as Lincoln did.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Slavery became an issue in my home state of New Mexico (then a territory). Both sides annexed it and tried to control it. Several battles were fought there, of all places, far removed from the main conflicts.

My town of Mesilla NM was the capital of the confederate territory of Arizona during the civil war. I've visited Glorieta, the Gettysburg of the west, a few times.

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the rest of the letter explains what he meant. I’m impressed by his appeal to both slaves and masters to treat each other kindly and eschew violence. He uses historical and scriptural sources to justify slavery, but he fears the violence ending it abruptly just as Lincoln did.

I will note that the word "priesthood" was not mentioned once in the letter, so I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.  

I will also note that Joseph Smith gave Elijah Abel the priesthood barely 2 months before this letter was written.  Are you suggesting he changed his mind that quickly on the matter?  If so, why didn't he rescind the priesthood from Elijah like BY did?

I'm not sure how this letter supports your theory. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My town of Mesilla NM was the capital of the confederate territory of Arizona during the civil war. I've visited Glorieta, the Gettysburg of the west, a few times.

Glorieta:Gettysburg. That’s like an ant floating down the Mississippi on an oak leaf shouting, “Raise the drawbridge! Raise the drawbridge!” 🙂

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Is that what the church is all about? Avoiding pressure for doing the right thing?  What about the churches and organizations that were contemporary with the Utah church but opposed and worked against the evils slavery , such as the Quakers, Christian abolitionist movement, and the American Anti-Slavery Society (Presbyterian)?  Additionally, many Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian members freed their slaves and sponsored black congregations.  How does history remember these organizations? Much better than the LDS church with their 150 years of racist history. 

The Church did not sponsor black congregations because blacks were not segregated into separated congregations. They worshipped together with the white members. 
That sounds less racist to me rather than "sponsoring" black congregations.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I will note that the word "priesthood" was not mentioned once in the letter, so I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.  

I will also note that Joseph Smith gave Elijah Abel the priesthood barely 2 months before this letter was written.  Are you suggesting he changed his mind that quickly on the matter?  If so, why didn't he rescind the priesthood from Elijah like BY did?

I'm not sure how this letter supports your theory. 

I noted that too, but we must acknowledge that the the foundations of the issue did not originate with BY. I believe the priesthood became an issue as the hostilities increased and culminated in chaos and war. By that time, the Saints were long gone. Joseph did not have to deal with that. Brigham did.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

The Church did not sponsor black congregations because blacks were not segregated into separated congregations. They worshipped together with the white members. 
That sounds less racist to me rather than "sponsoring" black congregations.

I will note that our Kentucky African branch meets separately because of languages and location.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think though the Church felt it had a legitimate case with Plural marriage being an important part of their religious beliefs and should therefore be protected and supported by the first amendment.
To them it was prudent to follow God's command even if the principle was not popular in the world.

It is a shame they weren’t as committed to follow God’s command to love one another then.
 

Just to be clear, it is the justifications for the Saints’ behaviour that are given nowadays that are dismissive of the enormity of what was done by rating the need to be alike unto God, love one another, see each other truly as brother and sister, all children of God as less important commandments or what allowing the interpretations of others to trump our own scriptures did that bug me.  What was done in the past is beyond my ability to understand and I can’t change it and therefore have no need to judge it save whether they were right or wrong and to understand the impact that occurs today.  Since I see little evidence of a revelation (for the Church) and quite a bit that suggests there wasn’t, I believe they were wrong and we need to stop acting like they were right.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

These words from Sister Carol McConkie seem like good advice:

We are grateful for a church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”⁷ The Lord’s house is a house of order, and we need never be deceived about where to look for answers to our questions or uncertain about which voice to follow. We need not be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”⁸ God reveals His word through His ordained servants, “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”⁹ When we choose to live according to the words of the prophets, we are on the covenant path that leads to eternal perfection.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/10/live-according-to-the-words-of-the-prophets?lang=eng

It would seem that many today reject these sentiments. I wonder what they offer instead.