May be old question in general, but

[_Darth J]

Which do you all think it will be?

Will bcspace admit that his "official publication = official doctrine" is inapplicable to the days before the Correlation Committee?

Or will he admit that because it was put in official LDS publications at the time (the Millenial Star), Adam-God really was official doctrine?

By the way, did anyone notice that the Millenial Star cites the Journal of Discourses as an authoritative source---just like Teach Ye Diligently has been repeatedly cited in official doctrine?

Who wants to admit that the Church cites the Journal of Discourses (where most of the controversial Brigham Young stuff comes from) as a source in official doctrinal curricula?

Will you be a doubting Thomas, or will you be blessed for admitting it before you are shown it?

[_Jason Bourne]

I wonder if all those people getting their endowments at the St. George Temple were informed that the Lecture at the Veil was just a matter of opinion.

By the way, since the Millennial Star was an official church publication, and the Adam-God idea was taught in the Millennial Star, Adam-God passes bcspace's otherwise anachronistic test for official doctrine.

Nice catch! Adam-God was official doctrine!

This is valid really and I have told BC before that not only was it published in the Millennial Star and part of the Lecture at the Veil in the St. George temple as well as published in the Deseret News which was owned by the Church and the publication arm of the Church at that time that it meets his own definition of doctrine. However, since the 12 did not accept it-thank you Orson Pratt-and they basically buried it with BY I still give more wiggle room on how official it was. Yet it still did make into into some official sources.

[_Brackite]

Here is that Part of Horace Greeley's interview with LDS President, Brigham Young:

H.G. — What is the position of your Church with respect to Slavery?

B.Y. — We consider it of Divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

H.G. — Are there any slaves now held in this Territory?

B.Y. — There are.

H.G. — Do your Territorial laws uphold Slavery?

B.Y. — Those laws are printed — you can read them for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the States, we do not favor their escape from the service of those owners.

H.G. — Am I to infer that Utah, if admitted as a member of the Federal Union, will be a Slave State?

B.Y. — No; she will be a Free State. Slavery here would prove useless and unprofitable. I regard it generally as a curse to the masters. I myself hire many laborers and pay them fair wages; I could not afford to own them. I can do better than subject myself to an obligation to feed and clothe their families, to provide and care for them, in sickness and health. Utah is not adapted to Slave Labor.

Link: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ser ... 131859.htm



This is Quite similar to these two statements spoken by LDS President, Brigham Young:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

(Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, Pages 290-291: 1859.)

Ham will continue to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands. Many of the blacks are treated worse than we treat our dumb brutes; and men will be called to judgment for the way they have treated the negro, and they will receive the condemnation of a guilty conscience, by the just Judge whose attributes are justice and truth. Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands.

(Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, Page 250: 1863.)


Link: viewtopic.php?p=399149#p399149

[_Buffalo]

The church has no doctrine.

Are you Blake Ostler?

I am his living avatar.

[_stemelbow]

I appreciate your input and agree with it overall. Continuing revelation is a great thing, as is accepting truth wherever we find it, I totally agree. Revelation to help refine doctrine, also.

In the case of the BY/Slavery statement, I think it was much more than just an idea of the past that can be labeled uninformed speculation these days because it was given as a direct answer to a question about the position of the Church, & deals with basic definitions of an entire group of spirits who came to Earth in a broad racial group.

It wasn't refined by Pres. Kimball, it was entirely refuted, and it was the foundation for over a century of religiously justified bigotry. That hurts.

Hey, since BY's concept of blacks & slavery & lesser quality of spirits was speculation & wrong, is it possible that denying the priesthood to them was a practice based on uninformed speculation, too?

Sure. That's the position I take. Them idiots shouldn't have assumed revelation on this matter.

Pres. Kimball said that we just don't yet know why God denied the priesthood to that particular group. That indicates Pres. Kimball did believe that part of the issue was divine revelation. I'll have to look that up & refresh my memory as to when/who/what the priesthood ban was revealed. If it came from Brigham Young, that'd open up a whole 'nother hard to understand can of worms.

I get it. But, I'm far too comfortable with the notion that even church leaders were completely biased and incorporated into the mindset regarding race. While it seems so evil and pernicious these days, it was pretty much the norm back in the 1800s and into the 1900s. I also have some concern that it took so long. But, I think that's a lot to do with the way the church is. Its hard to change such policies. I mean it was a big one. I'm most pleased it was all settled. I'm also most comfortable that God will make it up to those who were offended by it. He's just grand like that.

[_sock puppet]

I wonder if all those people getting their endowments at the St. George Temple were informed that the Lecture at the Veil was just a matter of opinion.

By the way, since the Millennial Star was an official church publication, and the Adam-God idea was taught in the Millennial Star, Adam-God passes bcspace's otherwise anachronistic test for official doctrine.

Nice catch! Adam-God was official doctrine!

This is valid really and I have told BC before that not only was it published in the Millennial Star and part of the Lecture at the Veil in the St. George temple as well as published in the Deseret News which was owned by the Church and the publication arm of the Church at that time that it meets his own definition of doctrine. However, since the 12 did not accept it-thank you Orson Pratt-and they basically buried it with BY I still give more wiggle room on how official it was. Yet it still did make into into some official sources.

I find it interesting that 12 other people have to agree with what the prophet says god told him for it to be official. As to those things the 12 don't agree with, was god just asschatting to his prophet?

[_sock puppet]

Which do you all think it will be?

Will bcspace admit that his "official publication = official doctrine" is inapplicable to the days before the Correlation Committee?

Or will he admit that because it was put in official LDS publications at the time (the Millenial Star), Adam-God really was official doctrine?

By the way, did anyone notice that the Millenial Star cites the Journal of Discourses as an authoritative source---just like Teach Ye Diligently has been repeatedly cited in official doctrine?

Who wants to admit that the Church cites the Journal of Discourses (where most of the controversial Brigham Young stuff comes from) as a source in official doctrinal curricula?

Will you be a doubting Thomas, or will you be blessed for admitting it before you are shown it?

How many times does bcspace and other defenders have to have Darth J hand them their head on a platter, much like John the Baptist's head was handed to Salome, for the defenders to learn. Darth J is going to kick your ass, time and time again. Wise up. You defenders are looking like amateur chumps.

[_cambreckenridge]

I get it. But, I'm far too comfortable with the notion that even church leaders were completely biased and incorporated into the mindset regarding race. While it seems so evil and pernicious these days, it was pretty much the norm back in the 1800s and into the 1900s. I also have some concern that it took so long. But, I think that's a lot to do with the way the church is. Its hard to change such policies. I mean it was a big one. I'm most pleased it was all settled. I'm also most comfortable that God will make it up to those who were offended by it. He's just grand like that.

You seem to smooth it over so easily & simply. I don't see it as being all settled, it's much more than a concern, in my opinion, and people have been way more than merely offended by it.

Joseph Smith's anti-slavery campaign statements (& Elijah Abel's ordination), set an example & precedents (from the head of this entire dispensation, no less) for every future prophet, making BYs open & extreme bigotry (more severe than many Americans of his day) more difficult to explain to anyone investigating the Church, much less to myself.

Why didn't any of the later presidents wondered why BY veered so far off JSs words & deeds. Hard to rationalize in a church that has continuing revelation at its base.

Without any official statement explaining how God's True Church & it's prophets didn't catch that galactic-sized error for over a century, & then only during a stressful era when accusing fingers pointed at the Church for its (un)official official BY position & practices, the whole thing can easily look pretty shaky.

If 'that's the way the church is,' as you say, then how can you trust anything in our day? If the prophets (1st Pres'y & the Twelve) can be excused for being entangled in the cultural 'mindset' of the day when they make seriously erroneous 'official' statements that can take over 100 years to correct, then anything classified 'official' by today's definition could still be based on common biases & other 'traditions of their fathers,' so to speak.

The course may have been corrected, but the problem is far from being 'all settled,' since it seems that no explanation has been given that fits the vastness of the error (outright lies, evidently), the length of its acceptance & practice, and the amount of damage & cruelty it involved.

Frankly, I'm blown away that you refer to the content of BYs statement as something that some people would be 'offended by.' I am 'offended' by the rude & inconsiderate. I am 'appalled' by a wholesale vilification of an entire race, acceptance of their slavery, and the shameful (& lingering) maltreatment of those people within the Church & in society by 'Saints,.' all of this done in the name of God's Church. We can't simply tell the world that BY ran off at the mouth a lot & our members & prophets, being completely biased, never questioned it until 1978, & we've rectified the situation by just ignoring BY's words these days. I posted here hoping that some explanation had been given during my time on the sidelines.

Maybe it isn't yet time for me to venture out of my inner/religious/spiritual/whatever-similar-term-is-in-favor-in-this-forum solitude/hermit's cave to interact with LDS people or the organization. Despite my questions, I'm not without faith & prayer on my solitary path, I'm not ignored by God. Plenty of people seek The truth, and He leads each person to It from their own starting point - so I'm 'comfortable' that my semi-parallel path with merge with The path again at some point & I'll be seeing the path clearly myself, rather than relying on other peoples' descriptions.

Cam

[_sock puppet]

I get it. But, I'm far too comfortable with the notion that even church leaders were completely biased and incorporated into the mindset regarding race. While it seems so evil and pernicious these days, it was pretty much the norm back in the 1800s and into the 1900s. I also have some concern that it took so long. But, I think that's a lot to do with the way the church is. Its hard to change such policies. I mean it was a big one. I'm most pleased it was all settled. I'm also most comfortable that God will make it up to those who were offended by it. He's just grand like that.

You seem to smooth it over so easily & simply. I don't see it as being all settled, it's much more than a concern, in my opinion, and people have been way more than merely offended by it.

Joseph Smith's anti-slavery campaign statements (& Elijah Abel's ordination), set an example & precedents (from the head of this entire dispensation, no less) for every future prophet, making BYs open & extreme bigotry (more severe than many Americans of his day) more difficult to explain to anyone investigating the Church, much less to myself.

Why didn't any of the later presidents wondered why BY veered so far off JSs words & deeds. Hard to rationalize in a church that has continuing revelation at its base.

Without any official statement explaining how God's True Church & it's prophets didn't catch that galactic-sized error for over a century, & then only during a stressful era when accusing fingers pointed at the Church for its (un)official official BY position & practices, the whole thing can easily look pretty shaky.

If 'that's the way the church is,' as you say, then how can you trust anything in our day? If the prophets (1st Pres'y & the Twelve) can be excused for being entangled in the cultural 'mindset' of the day when they make seriously erroneous 'official' statements that can take over 100 years to correct, then anything classified 'official' by today's definition could still be based on common biases & other 'traditions of their fathers,' so to speak.

The course may have been corrected, but the problem is far from being 'all settled,' since it seems that no explanation has been given that fits the vastness of the error (outright lies, evidently), the length of its acceptance & practice, and the amount of damage & cruelty it involved.

Frankly, I'm blown away that you refer to the content of BYs statement as something that some people would be 'offended by.' I am 'offended' by the rude & inconsiderate. I am 'appalled' by a wholesale vilification of an entire race, acceptance of their slavery, and the shameful (& lingering) maltreatment of those people within the Church & in society by 'Saints,.' all of this done in the name of God's Church. We can't simply tell the world that BY ran off at the mouth a lot & our members & prophets, being completely biased, never questioned it until 1978, & we've rectified the situation by just ignoring BY's words these days. I posted here hoping that some explanation had been given during my time on the sidelines.

Maybe it isn't yet time for me to venture out of my inner/religious/spiritual/whatever-similar-term-is-in-favor-in-this-forum solitude/hermit's cave to interact with LDS people or the organization. Despite my questions, I'm not without faith & prayer on my solitary path, I'm not ignored by God. Plenty of people seek The truth, and He leads each person to It from their own starting point - so I'm 'comfortable' that my semi-parallel path with merge with The path again at some point & I'll be seeing the path clearly myself, rather than relying on other peoples' descriptions.

Cam

I hope I'm still alive when the then FP/12 figure out that tithing was wrong, and the COTPOTCOJCOLDS sends me a check--plus interest--to make amends. It took about 130 years for it to correct the black exclusion from the priesthood. Tithing's already at 122 years--I might just live that long to get my check.

[_Buffalo]

Bump for bcspace :D