BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[SoCalCoug]

Yeah, but the alien DNA might explain this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3034876.html



Maybe the "Elihim" aliens left a signature in our DNA. Weird stuff.

Think about this: God took a rib from Adam's body to create Eve. Or did they really mean to say RIBonucleic acid?

[Vic Vega]

Think about this: God took a rib from Adam's body to create Eve. Or did they really mean to say RIBonucleic acid?

That makes more sense than some of the "root word" Sunday school lessons I have had over the years.

[Pelado]

That is a great answer but isn't that "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed"? Of course, is it "evil speaking" if the evidence seems to show that it is true?

This article really doesn't present anything new. President David O. McKay, in 1954, said:


If anything the article just re-ignites lingering questions about the entire thing and creates new ones. e.g.,

(1) How is a 'servitor' different from a 'slave'? The footnote points out that Utah territorial "legislators perceived “servitude” to be a more humane alternative to slavery." Were these "servitors" free? For example, if some white guy ask a "servitor" to get a beer from the frig could he say, "F-off and get your own damn beer you lazy white cracker" without risking being beaten with a whip?

(2) Why does the article mention Jane Manning James without mentioning that she was promised to be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith Jr? Of course, instead she was sealed to JS Jr as a slave "servitor" instead. The article fails to mention anything about that part.

(3) Why didn't the article mention that Elijah Abel was a GA and was ordained by JS Jr?

Here's the article that it referenced:

http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/ite...033000261/view

Over the years, many historians have asserted that after receiving this new authority [Popular Sovereignty], the Utah Legislature drafted "An Act in Relation to Service" in order to legalize slavery in the territory. However, the reality is far more complicated. In fact, if one carefully examines the text of the statute in its proper context, it becomes clear that the this legislation did not legalize chattel slavery as it has been alleged. Rather, the act was an attempt to find a practical compromise between three contradictory goals. The first of these goals was to abolish the status of "slave," meaning a human being who is legally reduced to a chattel, or a piece of personal property. However, the second goal was to honor the property rights of a small number of Southern slaveholders who brought their slaves into Utah while also ensuring that these bondsmen would be subject to the influence and authority of the community at large. Finally, the third goal was to uphold the appearance of neutrality towards slavery in order to strengthen a bid for statehood. In order to accommodate these goals, the law instituted a scheme of quasi-indentured servitude and gradual emancipation for African slaves who immigrated to the territory with their masters.

The article also included this little tidbit:

For decades, the equestrian Utes had been raiding weaker Indian tribes for slaves (typically children) whom they then sold to Euro-American traders along the Old Spanish Trail or to other Native Americans.