I'm getting conflicting messages, and could use some clarification. Thanks!

seems: in the North, he was;

in the South, NO SIR!

gotta remember: Joe was FIRST a chameleon.

someone here may have the references for this info, I don't.

I hear complaints about Romney being a flip-flopper and spineless. I think JS was a prototype for this type of behavior...say whatever will keep/get you into power. That is at least until Bro Joe went of the rails.

He supported slave-owners' claim that slaves were their property. His plan was to have the US sell land and buy the slaves from their owners and then ship the slaves off back to Africa, a land they had never known.

If he was an abolitionist he never would have supported a plan to pay slave-owners money for something they didn't rightly own.

If he was a civil rights activist he never would have proposed that all black folk be placed on ships and sent off to a foreign land so America could stay "white & delightsome."

He was a politician trying to play the north and the south. Not surprising for someone who planned on running for POTUS.

Q. Didn’t Joseph Smith himself at one time approved of Negro slavery, and condemned Abolitionists?

A. Yes. Joseph Smith did condemn abolition in the early 1830s. In the 1830s the Prophet Joseph Smith seemed to agree with slavery. In 1836 he wrote:
“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not have slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.

this is from a website:
angelfire

I think Joseph Smith was an in the closet abolitionist. The racism most started with Brigham Young and all the prophets after him until Kimball.

But yeah, like they said above, it depended on what state he was. He was careful with his words publicly.

in those days.... with communications at a very rough stage, people could get away with being two-faced a lot of the time; IF Joe was a 'True Prophet'... don't ya think he would have BOLDLY said what God would have him say, to ALL of Gods people, with One Voice?

1830's & 1840's; according to the D&C, slavery & the impending 'Civil War' were the TOP items on the sheet... Wouldn't God give people some CLEAR guidance on this Basic, Bedrock matter of morality, ethics, & value of individual souls?

i guess not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2011 01:08PM by guynoirprivateeye.

He seems to have accepted slavery as a political necessity. However, he did allow a black man, Elijah Abel to be ordained to the priesthood prior to taking the anti-abolisionist stand. It is my understanding that the descendents of Elder Abel were also permitted ordination. If memory serves, the Abel men were employed at the Hotel Utah in menial postions for many years.

Anything the "Mormonites" have got their mouse keys on is suspect, but here's the Wiki bio of Elijah Abel. He couldn't have worked at the Hotel Utah, having passed away in 1885. The Hotel Utah opened in 1911...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel

Wiki does mention Abel's son and grandson, Enoch and Elijah, were also odained as elders, but as I said, the Mormonites play really fast and loose with their history...

And their bias is evident. There's no Wiki entry for the Hotel Utah, but a huge one for the "Joseph Smith Memorial Building."

I was silly enough to follow a link yesterday to a CNN story about Romney. The comment thread was of course inundated with hypersensitive defenders of the faith, and I saw enough repeated claims that JS was an abolitionist to make me want to be a little more certain.

It seems we cannot be entirely sure what he actually felt because he was a lying con man. I wonder if he even knew, or if the answer literally depended on what he thought he should feel, given the situation. I would actually understand that a little, because as a TBM everything I could ever dare to say, even to myself, had to be run through a series of filters to ensure compliance with the system. Truth lost all meaning, because the answer to any question was always some version of "whatever makes the church more true".

At any rate, I'll feel comfortable answering that question in the future. I think to simply claim he was an abolitionist is dishonest. Thanks again for the information everyone.

Here is an article from UTLM on the subject:

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no102.htm#Racism