Hiding in the Moment?

A few days late, I realize, but I’ve just discovered that Liam Hoare (sorry I misspelled your name, by the way; I’ve fixed it in the original) has responded to my earlier post, I Believe…. As my regular readers know, brevity is not my strong suit, but I will attempt to deal with his complaints succinctly.

Liam’s response deals with the Church’s position on race—an issue which I asserted, and continue to assert—has been a non-issue from the start (see previous post). I will thus deal with his arguments in turn.


1.

“Jeff makes the assertion in his reply that Joseph Smith was some kind of Lincoln before there was a Lincoln.”

I actually didn’t say that, but it’s a good point. Joseph Smith, Jr., actually did run for President of the United States on an anti-slavery platform, in 1844. His position was that the United States government should outlaw any new slavery, then sell all federal lands and use the money to purchase the freedom of all existing slaves—which, by the way, would probably have averted the Civil War Joseph had been prophesying since 1832.

A “Lincoln before there was a Lincoln”? I suspect Liam was joking, but it actually sounds like an apt description.


2.

“Smith conceived of a race of Lamanites, whose descendants were punished with dark pigmented skin for turning away from God.”

Liam cites 2 Nephi 5:21 for this argument, which is very nice, except that verse actually disproves his argument. Let’s look at the verse itself:

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” (2 Nephi 5:21)

There are two parts to this verse: first, the cursing; and second, the skin of blackness. While many racist, so-called “Mormons” have certainly understood this verse in the way that Liam has chosen to interpret it, a careful reading shows that the cursing and the skin color are two completely different things. This, by the way, corresponds exactly to Joseph Smith’s inspired revision of Genesis 5:21-25, in which Cain is cursed because of his iniquity in v.21, then blessed with a mark in v.25 (which mark Church leaders have interpreted as a skin of blackness).


3.

“Second, Smith and his followers actively preached against abolitionists in Missouri in the lead-up to the American civil war.”

I’ll invite Liam to provide some context for this one. Once I can see his source, I can know how to accurately respond. Moving on, then…


4.

“Third, one of his disciples, Orson Pratt, proselytised that at the time of the battle between God and the devil, a people who did not take a side in the conflict were cast out ‘to take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the negro or African race.’”

Yes, Orson Pratt did preach this. Unfortunately for Liam, Elder Pratt was also officially reprimanded by the First Presidency. He later stated:

“At that time I expressed those views, I did most sincerely believe that they were in accordance with the word of God…. But I have since learned from my brethren that some of the doctrines I had advanced in The Seer, at Washington, were incorrect. So far as revelation from the heavens is concerned, I have had none in relation to those points of doctrine.” (Messages of the First Presidency 2:218-219).

When Pratt's remarks were printed in the Deseret News, the First Presidency attached this statement: "This should be a lasting lesson to the Elders of Israel not to undertake to teach doctrines they do not understand” (ibid, 2:233). I would submit that this counsel applies not only to Pratt and any other elder of Israel, but to each of us. ;-)


5.

“If we presume that God never took a position on African-Americans, it must be concluded that the elders of the Church lied in the 1978 declaration.”

This one really puzzles me. The 1978 declaration—published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration—2—doesn’t make any mention of African-Americans nor any other race. The closest it comes is the statement that “Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color,” but that still doesn’t deal with African-Americans as a whole. If it did, how can we explain those African-Americans who held the Priesthood before 1978 (the first being Elijah Abel, who was ordained in 1836)?


6.

“We also know that Joseph Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, drawing upon the former’s teachings, instituted a policy which meant that no African-American was allowed to hold any position within the Mormon priesthood, nor take part in a succession of important rituals and ceremonies, including endowment, marriage and sealing.”

Actually, no, we don’t. Enoch Abel was apparently ordained to the Priesthood during Brigham Young’s administration, and his father, Elijah, continued in his position as a member of the Third Quorum of the Seventy. Just because some African-Americans were not called to Priesthood offices doesn’t mean none were. (The temple ordinances are a different issue which I don’t claim to understand any more than you do. However, it is noteworthy that African-American children adopted by non–African-American parents were eligible for temple blessings, long before the 1978 revelation.)


7.

“President Kimbell (sic) announced a reversal….”

This is perhaps the funniest argument in the entire post, as Liam immediately follows it with the full text of a quote that disproves it. I will include only the beginning (which is the relevant portion) here:

“He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come….” (Offical Declaration—2)

So per Liam’s own blog, there was no reversal at all; God simply fulfilled a promise He had previously made. Let’s say my wife asks me to load the dishwasher and I say, “I can’t, right now, but give me a few minutes and I will.” Then, a few minutes later, I load the dishwasher. Would Liam claim that I reversed my position because I didn’t do it right when my wife first asked?


Liam concludes his charges with the following paragraph:

“In the wake of such evidence, Jeff is left with two choices. Either, [sic] the elders did receive word from God on this matter, and therefore the Lord himself did ‘change his mind about black people’. Or, if we presume that God never took a position on African-Americans, it must be concluded that not only did Joseph Smith fictionalise the various revelations he received on race, but the elders of the Church then lied subsequently in the 1978 declaration in order to duck a rather thorny branch of Mormon doctrine.”

Liam has built a rather large straw man, here. Unfortunately, the scarecrow has begun to lose form. First, he claims that “the Lord… change[d] his mind about black people,” despite the fact that, even if his arguments were valid, not a single one deals with “black people” but rather African-Americans (who are, of course, a small subset of “black people”). But even if we somehow assume that “black people” and “African-Americans” be synonymous, not a single revelation received by Joseph Smith, Jr.—nor any of his successors, for that matter—was negated by the 1978 revelation. In fact, said revelations were confirmed and expanded upon, in the same way that the New Testament confirms and expands upon the Old. And after all, isn’t that the whole point of continuing revelation?