Joseph Smiths arrest record?

[_beefcalf]

Simon,

In your last few posts here, you reiterated your stance that the church is not racist. Several of us have provided substantial referential material which would very certainly lead disinterested third-parties to conclude otherwise.

Since then, you have been silent on this matter. May we interpret your silence as a concession on this point? May we continue the debate on other aspects of Mormon theology, but place "The church is racist" in the "resolved' column?

You might be able to find some dark corner of your belief-system in which to hide from this evidence, but it may be helpful for you to face this problem head-on. The reality is that these facts, these quotations, are going to continue to cause LDS baptism rates to plummet in any community with free access to information. Which leads to the realization that the only places the church will find missionary efforts fruitful is in those areas where people cannot get access to the facts. That would make for a rather sad bullet point for the brochure: "Baptizing loads of ignorant people all over the world!"

We can dispute all day whether or not you believe Joseph Smith did this, or said that, or slept with this or that 16-year-old. What is very much harder to discount are the pervasive, frequent and extremely well-documented instances of hateful, bigoted speech emanating from the very highest reaches of the LDS hierarchy, Presidents and Prophets not excluded.

You can offer all sorts of pablum about 'we don't know why' or you can pull out the old apologetic trump-card 'that's what God commanded', but in the end, what you've got is a very big problem.

[_Markk]

Simon,

This is a quote from the General Authority;

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation. (See Joseph's quote above for full context)

Incredible, in other words the LDS church is saying they are only bigoted in spiritual matters.

Simon, anyone that was raised in the church in the pre-ban generations understand that the LDS church was bigoted in their teachings. Even the above statement is bogus in that it was written in 1969 and I doubt one could have found very many Bishops to marry a black man and a white woman, even for "time only". I am amazed at the spin you put on this having lived a bigoted life as a member being taught that "blacks were not worthy to hold the priesthood."

As long as the Book of Mormon teaches Black skin is a sign of a curse, then LDS theology is a bigoted theology at the GA's above confirm. And if the Church retracts the Book of Mormon teachings on this, the Book of Mormon falls...Racism may indeed be the straw that divides the church...we will have to wait and see?

[_Simon Belmont]

Who was not allowed authority besides people with Black Skin to hold the priesthood?

No one that I know of.

So by finally allowing the blacks to hold the priesthood, and "physically" retracting the ban, there is no need for an apology...why Simon? why doesn't the church need to apologize...if you don't answer this question I will take it as because they believe they did nothing wrong.

First, there is no greater apology than righting the wrong. They did exactly that in 1978. Second, the time period between say... 1847 and 1978 is about 130 years. This is the time period that the Church did not allow African Americans to hold the priesthood. The Church has been formally a Church since 1830, and it will, no doubt, continue on. So, taking an arbitrary date, say 2095, 265 years after the formation of the Church, the Church will have not allowed African Americans to hold the priesthood for for exactly 49% of its existence. Now, let us calculate this for an infinite time period. It seems that your charge of racism becomes nil.

[_Darth J]

Second, the time period between say... 1847 and 1978 is about 130 years. This is the time period that the Church did not allow African Americans to hold the priesthood.

I'm sorry, Simon, but it turns out that Joseph Smith himself instituted the priesthood ban, and that Elijah Abel being ordained was a mistake---he was later removed from the Church's priesthood rolls when it was discovered that he had black African ancestry. You can read about this, as recounted by a church education employee, here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14397&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

I'm so disappointed that someone who purports to be such an expert on Joseph Smith was not aware of this.

[_schreech]

So, taking an arbitrary date, say 2095, 265 years after the formation of the Church, the Church will have not allowed African Americans to hold the priesthood for for exactly 49% of its existence. Now, let us calculate this for an infinite time period. It seems that your charge of racism becomes nil.

Lol - Thank you for providing the stupidest thing i have read on the internet this week....lets talk about percentages....how much of the current world population is Mormon...how about in 2095?...what percentage of humanity will be (or will have been) Brighamite LDS?....it seems that the influence of joe's church on humanity becomes nil...

[_Ray A]

First, there is no greater apology than righting the wrong.

Did the Lord make a mistake?

[_Simon Belmont]

Second, the time period between say... 1847 and 1978 is about 130 years. This is the time period that the Church did not allow African Americans to hold the priesthood.

I'm sorry, Simon, but it turns out that Joseph Smith himself instituted the priesthood ban, and that Elijah Abel being ordained was a mistake---he was later removed from the Church's priesthood rolls when it was discovered that he had black African ancestry. You can read about this, as recounted by a church education employee, here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... &sk=t&sd=a

I'm so disappointed that someone who purports to be such an expert on Joseph Smith was not aware of this.

My source says Abel remained a seventy, and in 1884 he served a final mission in Canada, during which he became ill. He died upon his return home to Utah Territory.

[_Darth J]

My source says Abel remained a seventy, and in 1884 he served a final mission in Canada, during which he became ill. He died upon his return home to Utah Territory.

You go right ahead and show me that source that is better than the Church historian's office.

Black people could serve missions prior to 1978, even though they could not perform ordinances. Women now serve missions without the priesthood. Serving a mission in Canada is irrelevant to whether his name was removed from the priesthood rolls.

[_Simon Belmont]

Black people could serve missions prior to 1978, even though they could not perform ordinances. Women now serve missions without the priesthood. Serving a mission in Canada is irrelevant to whether his name was removed from the priesthood rolls.

In 1883 he is still on Church records as a Seventy.

Also On November 27, 1900, Enoch Abel, son of Elijah Abel, was ordained an Elder. Enoch’s son, Elijah, was ordained a Priest on July 5, 1934, and an Elder on September 29, 1935.

From: http://www.blacklds.org/abel

[_Markk]

Who was not allowed authority besides people with Black Skin to hold the priesthood?

No one that I know of.

So by finally allowing the blacks to hold the priesthood, and "physically" retracting the ban, there is no need for an apology...why Simon? why doesn't the church need to apologize...if you don't answer this question I will take it as because they believe they did nothing wrong.

First, there is no greater apology than righting the wrong. They did exactly that in 1978. Second, the time period between say... 1847 and 1978 is about 130 years. This is the time period that the Church did not allow African Americans to hold the priesthood. The Church has been formally a Church since 1830, and it will, no doubt, continue on. So, taking an arbitrary date, say 2095, 265 years after the formation of the Church, the Church will have not allowed African Americans to hold the priesthood for for exactly 49% of its existence. Now, let us calculate this for an infinite time period. It seems that your charge of racism becomes nil.

Are you kidding me...did you actually write that. Your justifing racism by saying in future years it will be forgotten...I can't wait for the next time a LDS member says that it was wrong for the mob to murder Joseph Smith, I'm just going to say in 500 years the charge of murder will be nil...

If you believe that by just righting a wrong without a verbal apology is all that is needed, then you have never neen married. That is such a cop out.

The Book of Mormon teaches Black skin is a sign of the curse, it is still published and part of LDS theology.

Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is correct in this teaching or a mistake? Should this teaching be retracted?