Page 1 of 2

Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:13 am
by _Mad Viking
In December 1832 Joseph recieved a revelation. The revelation was regarding a war that was to shortly come to pass. As part of this conflict the Lord revealed the following regarding the part of the American slaves in this conflict:
D&C 87:4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who hall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
Twelve years later, during Joseph's bid for the Presidency of the United States, part of Joseph's platform was the abolishment of slavery by the year of 1850 by paying slavemasters for their slaves and then setting them free (A noble cause to be sure). I can't help but wonder why Joseph was trying to nullify part of the Lord's revelation. Any thoughts? I have my theory, but I am wondering what others think of this, if anything.

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:24 pm
by _Inconceivable
Thought provoking question. He was going to fund the program by selling real estate owned by the Gov. to the people.

Perhaps, like Bush who appears to be trying to take the edge off of Armageden, Smith was attempting to skew revealed fate.

I suppose this calls for a kudo. I see nothing wrong with someone with the presence of mind to predict an event to try and change the outcome before it happens.

Admirable gesture by an immoral man.

Of course, I use the same logic by regularly changing the oil in my car.

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:40 pm
by _TAK
Wasn't Brig. Young Pro slavery? I think that was the case - hoping that a civil war would destroy the country and that would leave the saints alone to establish Deseret..

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:04 pm
by _The Nehor
TAK wrote:Wasn't Brig. Young Pro slavery? I think that was the case - hoping that a civil war would destroy the country and that would leave the saints alone to establish Deseret..


No, he expected the war and was glad the Saints were out of it but that is about the extent of it.

The Saints are NOT encouraged to participate in fulfilling all prophecy. There have been prophecies of wars but you won't hear over the pulpit admonitions to do all in your power to increase discord and raise global tensions. Jeremiah told the city Jerusalem would fall but he was not sabotaging it's defenses while doing so. Prophecies of bad things we should do what we can to mitigate or avert the prophecy. Most prophecies of this type are prophecies of judgment and could theoretically be averted through general repentance. This almost never happens though.

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:54 pm
by _TAK
The Nehor wrote:
TAK wrote:Wasn't Brig. Young Pro slavery?


No, ....


I am assuming you just make b***s*** up as you go..


Although the practice was never widespread, some Utah pioneers held African-American slaves until 1862 when Congress abolished slavery in the territories. Three slaves, Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Oscar Crosby, came west with the first pioneer company in 1847, and their names appear on a plaque on the Brigham Young Monument in downtown Salt Lake City. The Census of 1850 reported 26 Negro slaves in Utah and the 1860 Census 29; some have questioned those figures.

Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the Compromise of 1850, which brought California into the Union as a free state while allowing Utah and New Mexico territories the option of deciding the issue by "popular sovereignty." Some Mormon pioneers from the South had brought African-American slaves with them when they migrated west. Some freed their slaves in Utah; others who went on to California had to emancipate them there.

The Mormon church had no official doctrine for or against slaveholding, and leaders were ambivalent. In 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for abolition. Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding, declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the practice was ordained by God. In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde said the church would not interfere in relations between master and slave.
The Legislature formally sanctioned slaveholding in 1852 but cautioned against inhumane treatment and stipulated that slaves could be declared free if their masters abused them. Records document the sale of a number of slaves in Utah.


http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapte ... nutah.html

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:09 pm
by _The Nehor
TAK wrote:I am assuming you just make b***s*** up as you go..


Although the practice was never widespread, some Utah pioneers held African-American slaves until 1862 when Congress abolished slavery in the territories. Three slaves, Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Oscar Crosby, came west with the first pioneer company in 1847, and their names appear on a plaque on the Brigham Young Monument in downtown Salt Lake City. The Census of 1850 reported 26 Negro slaves in Utah and the 1860 Census 29; some have questioned those figures.

Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the Compromise of 1850, which brought California into the Union as a free state while allowing Utah and New Mexico territories the option of deciding the issue by "popular sovereignty." Some Mormon pioneers from the South had brought African-American slaves with them when they migrated west. Some freed their slaves in Utah; others who went on to California had to emancipate them there.

The Mormon church had no official doctrine for or against slaveholding, and leaders were ambivalent. In 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for abolition. Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding, declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the practice was ordained by God. In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde said the church would not interfere in relations between master and slave.
The Legislature formally sanctioned slaveholding in 1852 but cautioned against inhumane treatment and stipulated that slaves could be declared free if their masters abused them. Records document the sale of a number of slaves in Utah.


http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapte ... nutah.html


Yes, the existence of a few slaves in a place where it was legal to hold slaves shows that Brigham Young was pro-slavery.

(Sarcasm off)

You asked if he was pro-slavery. I said no. Then you say they were ambivalent. That means they were not pro-slavery does it not? Do you just like to rant at people about imagined views? The Church did not encourage slavery or abolish it. I think that means they were AMBIVALENT, i.e. not pro-slavery.

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:17 pm
by _TAK
The Nehor wrote:
TAK wrote:I am assuming you just make b***s*** up as you go..


Although the practice was never widespread, some Utah pioneers held African-American slaves until 1862 when Congress abolished slavery in the territories. Three slaves, Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Oscar Crosby, came west with the first pioneer company in 1847, and their names appear on a plaque on the Brigham Young Monument in downtown Salt Lake City. The Census of 1850 reported 26 Negro slaves in Utah and the 1860 Census 29; some have questioned those figures.

Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the Compromise of 1850, which brought California into the Union as a free state while allowing Utah and New Mexico territories the option of deciding the issue by "popular sovereignty." Some Mormon pioneers from the South had brought African-American slaves with them when they migrated west. Some freed their slaves in Utah; others who went on to California had to emancipate them there.

The Mormon church had no official doctrine for or against slaveholding, and leaders were ambivalent. In 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for abolition. Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding, declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the practice was ordained by God. In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde said the church would not interfere in relations between master and slave.
The Legislature formally sanctioned slaveholding in 1852 but cautioned against inhumane treatment and stipulated that slaves could be declared free if their masters abused them. Records document the sale of a number of slaves in Utah.


http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapte ... nutah.html


Yes, the existence of a few slaves in a place where it was legal to hold slaves shows that Brigham Young was pro-slavery.

(Sarcasm off)

You asked if he was pro-slavery. I said no. Then you say they were ambivalent. That means they were not pro-slavery does it not? Do you just like to rant at people about imagined views? The Church did not encourage slavery or abolish it. I think that means they were AMBIVALENT, i.e. not pro-slavery.


Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding, declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the practice was ordained by God....It was legalized by the Utah in 1851. (See the Bold..)

Pro-Slavery does not mean encouraged .. any more than Pro-Abortion means people encouraging abortions. sheesh..

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:51 am
by _Mad Viking
It was in November of 1832 (one month prior to the "revelation" in question) that South Carolina issue the Articles of Nullification. At its core the articles were a huge middle finger to the Federal government and war seemed imminent. President Jackson even started making plans for federal troops to march on South Carolina. In fact, South Carolina had been a squeaky wheel since the inception of The Union. The so called "Civil War" revelation wasn't about the events of the 1860's, but was about a conflict that Joseph viewed as inevitable in the near future (1830's). Stating that South Carolina was going to start a war between the states at the time was like prophecying that there will be conflict in the Middle East. The fact that this "revelation" wasn't canonized until well after Appamatox and Joseph's call for the abolition of slavery by 1850 leads me to believe that Joseph was not predicting what we know as the Civil War, but some conflict that never actually occured.

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:32 pm
by _Jaybear
The Nehor wrote:Yes, the existence of a few slaves in a place where it was legal to hold slaves shows that Brigham Young was pro-slavery.

(Sarcasm off)

You asked if he was pro-slavery. I said no. Then you say they were ambivalent. That means they were not pro-slavery does it not? Do you just like to rant at people about imagined views? The Church did not encourage slavery or abolish it. I think that means they were AMBIVALENT, i.e. not pro-slavery.


Horace Greeley interviewed Brigham Young for the New York Tribune in 1859.

Horace Greeley: What is the position of your church with respect to slavery?

Brigham Young: We consider it of divine institution and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

Lets see, the LDS Church, through its prophet, takes the position that slavery is a divine institution, at the time when many many others, without the benefit divine inspiration, decreed slavery as evil and immoral.

So Nehor, who was correct. Was slavery immoral, or a divine institution, sanctioned by God.

Re: Joseph Smith and American Slavery

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:33 pm
by _TAK
Mad Viking wrote:It was in November of 1832 (one month prior to the "revelation" in question) that South Carolina issue the Articles of Nullification. At its core the articles were a huge middle finger to the Federal government and war seemed imminent. President Jackson even started making plans for federal troops to march on South Carolina. In fact, South Carolina had been a squeaky wheel since the inception of The Union. The so called "Civil War" revelation wasn't about the events of the 1860's, but was about a conflict that Joseph viewed as inevitable in the near future (1830's). Stating that South Carolina was going to start a war between the states at the time was like prophecying that there will be conflict in the Middle East. The fact that this "revelation" wasn't canonized until well after Appamatox and Joseph's call for the abolition of slavery by 1850 leads me to believe that Joseph was not predicting what we know as the Civil War, but some conflict that never actually occured.


Very interesting ..