35 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Sunday, May 19, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
The only time it’s referenced at scriptures.byu.edu, is when JS or someone else is quoting the “prisoners of Jesus Christ” line. Otherwise, nary a topic of discussion. Otherwise see D&C 101:79 and Alma 48:11. |
Slavery is not mentioned in either the Old or New Testament as a forbidden activity. In the Old Testament, it was regulated. Basically, Israelites could be held in slavery for six years. Non-Israelites could be kept as permanent slaves. In the New Testament, there is no forbidding of such. In modern times, Joseph Smith supported various approaches to slavery but he really wasn’t a true abolitionist. More recently, Cleon Skousen made the argument that abolitionists were actually a barrier to the ending of slavery and that slaves actually were happy as such. |
Then Cleon Skousen is an ass. We can talk about it, but the fact is that the question raised by the teacher was not actually on topic because slavery is not addressed in Philemon per se. It is simply a background fact. You could have discussed the issue of slavery for the entire lesson and not nearly covered the topic adequately and yet covered none of the lesson or the themes raised by Paul in his letter to Philemon. Because of that, I don’t totally disagree with the high councilman in your class. Some topics are best left to college seminars, blog posts, study groups, or panel discussions. Not GD class. |
To answer the question directly: D&C 101:79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. Seems pretty straightforward to me. |
Sorry, just one more thing: To say that the New testament doesn’t forbid slavery is just intentionally dishonest. One cannot read the teachings of Christ and square them with slavery in any way. That was the driving force behind the abolitionist movement from the very beginning: How can you “love thy neighbor as thyself” if you condone owning another human being? The only way is by creating some sort of tortured logic whereby slaves are not actually considered people, as slavery apologists very often did. Philemon should not be read as condoning slavery either:
Does that sound to you like Paul wants Philemon to take Onesimus back as a slave? It sure doesn’t sound that way to me. |
I *heart* MCQ. Thank you for doing the work and quoting D&C 101:79. |
“What does God think about slavery?” Remember also Abraham, whose righteousness is extolled over and over in scripture in words atributed to God, and the men born in his house or bought with money. No one really wants to think about it though; they want to signal their own goodness in rejecting slavery, unlike wishy-washy old Abraham and Paul, whom we’ve found a way to better. And so it is that a stake high councilman moves the conversation on to something else. |
MCQ, Our reading of the text is that Paul wants Onesimus to be freed. But this same epistle was used by the South during the civil war to justify slavery and specifically the return of escaped slaves. It is hardly cut and dried. At the very least it looks like God thinks escaped slaves new forgiveness from their masters and should obtain it in person. And you can argue that the topic isn’t addressed but the whole point of the epistle is that Onesimus is going to return to his master to deliver this letter. No slavery, no letter. I should also add that the question was asked at the end of the lesson. There were perhaps 6 minutes left. So the chance to devote an entire lesson to this topic had already passed. I don’t see why a short discussion of the topic the is the basis for the book is inappropriate. |
The D&C section 101 is the only scripture I am aware of that explicitly bans slavery. All hail the restoration!!! Its good enough for me :) |
Slavery exists today. People around the world enslave one another and depending on the country, probably buy and sell one another. You can’t take everything in the Bible as God’s opinion. I think this bit of scripture reflects Paul’s life as a Roman. I also think, further, that it’s possible the slave’s life was in danger because he ran away. Paul, as a Roman, was advocating mercy, perhaps? You simply cannot equate this situation to America’s history of slavery. I’d have a problem with a teacher introducing Philemon and trying to make the class discussion about Mormon doctrine regarding slavery in the US. Ridiculous. And honestly, any thinking person would take it for granted that God hates slavery. Hello. Totally agree with you about Skousen. Something about him has always bothered me. |
annegb, The concept that God hates slavery seems obvious to us, but that has not been the case for most of human history. Here’s a question for you, was Deseret a free territory or a slave territory? |
bbell, I agree that the restoration is great and that scripture is a clear signal. But even with that we have a mixed record. |
I’m guessing…..slave. Because Brigham Young was kind of a weenie and didn’t want to make waves. But that’s entirely a guess but goes along with my theory of why the policy of black men and the priesthood evolved the way it did. My theory is that had Joseph Smith lived, he would have clarified the policy and allowed all men, regardless of color, to hold the priesthood. Brigham Young was busy moving people west and colonizing Utah. Gradually, after the war, good albeit mostly ignorant people came to a benign kind of bigotry. Putting aside the KKK and the like, most Americans felt that black people were inferior. And they patted themselves on the back for their charitable attitudes contrasting themselves to said KKK. And you have to consider that the majority of Americans had no interaction with black people at all. I didn’t until I was in seventh grade and that was in uh, 1964. Churches in the south practiced segregation (and, as I’ve pointed out before, probably had a lot of members in the clan….if they didn’t openly lobby for them) and to some extent, still do! You never hear about that when people are slamming on Mormon policy pre June 1978. I so long for the day when I can ask a black Baptist who is knocking my religion, “how many Mormons do you think were in the Ku Klux Klan?” So, back to my answer, Joseph died, Brigham opted for practicality, and subsequent prophets took it for granted that black people were inferior. Until Boyd K. Packer and Spencer W. Kimball came along and blew that out of the water. When I say that in Sunday School, people go ballistic and talk about revelation and how it was God’s will to wait till 1978. That’s just rubbish. Still, arj, Philemon (which I’ve never paid attention to before, but am now in Romans—-Paul rocks!–and will certainly read it closer this time) is totally irrelevant to the discussion of slavery and Mormon attitudes towards it. It’s apples and oranges. I have a made-up story that Paul took Philemon, converted him, and used him as a servant until Philemon wanted to go back to his master and so Paul wrote the letter, as a Roman, so Philemon wasn’t punished for leaving. Romans had clout. We know that. And—–I’ve said this before, too—-NOW, our church is the LEAST racist church on the planet. Although bigotry isn’t dead, at least in southern Utah. But it’s not about race or color, it’s about who conforms most to the norms of Mormonism. Well. That was a rant. |
There is nothing to indicate that Onesimus was supposed to ask forgiveness for running away. Many commentators say that he was supposed to ask forgiveness for being “unprofitable” as Paul says he was previously. He also may have stolen from his master upon leaving in order to provide for his journey. At the very least, his leaving without permission would have been considered illegal and doing a wrong to his master according to the laws at the time, so Paul asking him to return and ask forgiveness seems appropriate, but he is clearly not advocating a return to slavery. Slavery apologists used all kinds of scripture to justify slavery, as did Mormon apologists for the priesthood ban. That doesn’t mean that we should give credence to their interpretation now. The clear meaning is that Paul wanted Onesimus welcomed home as a brother, not a servant. Also, I believe Utah territory was a slave territory only because of the order in which it came up. At the time, the all-consuming goal was avoiding war, so the territories and states were allowed to be part of the country only if they could keep the equal balance between slave territory and free territory. The Utah territory had to be a slave territory in order to balance the previous territory that was admitted as free. |
arJ, to be clear, I wasn’t intending to say that the teacher’s question was inappropriate, especially if it came near the end of the lesson. I was only saying that the high councilman’s answer was reasonable. |
The cultural norm for Paul’s time was that slavery was acceptable. Paul would have been much more straight forward if he was intending to condemn the practice. Instead, it appears that Paul was suggesting that Onesimus should be sent back to assist Paul with his work, because Onesimus was helpful. The most straight forward interpretation of the letter is that Paul is making a cleverly worded request for Onesimus to become his slave. Paul was a product of his culture in the same way that Brigham Young was the product of his. Why should either of their beliefs give us any indications of God’s feelings toward slavery? |
Your final question is a good one, Seldom, especially because it’s not clear that Paul ever intended his private letter to Philemon to be treated as scripture. Having said that, I doubt that Paul was angling to get himself a new slave. That is not a straightforward reading in my opinion. And even considering the “product of his time” argument, Brigham Young was backward in his racial attitudes. By way of comparison, consider that Brigham Young and Abraham Lincoln were born only 8 years apart. |
He wanted him welcome home as a brother in Christ. It is unclear if he was to be freed from slavery. As you say, the topic isn’t directly addressed so it is hard to jump to a conclusion. But all sorts of questions are raised. For instance, if you are Christian and your slaves convert should you free them? As for the territory question, my understanding was that BY wanted it to be a slave state as some prominent members held slaves. It wasn’t a slave state in name only. |
Correction : territory rather than state |
early latter day saints held different views on slavery. I have a family line that as a condition of their baptism freed their slaves as a act if repentance. |
Correction: Utah territory, along with New Mexico Territory, was created in the compromise of 1850. The new territories were neither slave nor free but could become either a slave or free state by local option, which was called “popular sovereignty.” The reason that the South liked this idea is that it had previously been proposed, under the Wilmot Proviso, than slavery would be banned in all the territory acquired from Mexico. From Wikipedia:
|
arJ, you can say that Paul was talking to Philemon about welcoming Onesimus home as a brother in Christ, which is correct in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t also advocating that he be freed. Otherwise how do you explain the language of verse 16, that Onesimus be received forever: “Not now as a servant”? If he is to be received not as a servant then how can he remain a slave? (BTW, my understanding is that the word that is translated in Philemon as “servant” is more correctly understood to be “slave.” Please let me know if your understanding is different. Now for the really tough issue: How do you pronounce “Philemon”? I have heard both (2)FILL-a-mon and (2)fie-LEE-mon, as well as the slightly less common (3)FIE-le-mon. How do you say it? And which is correct? I personally favor #2, but that’s only because it just soumds more pleasing to my ear. |
MCQ, I have no idea how to properly pronounce that name or any number of other names. I’d love it if you’d answer the questions in my previous post. Interestingly, Charles C. Rich, an apostle, was a slave holder in Utah. |
It’s number 1. Trust me on this. |
arJ: which previous post? I’m confused. annegb: how do you know? Revelation? or do you have some scholarly info on this? |
MCQ, I want to know if you think that Philemon has some obligation to free any of his slaves other than Onesimus. Feel free to consider whether the slaves are Christian or not. Assuming that Onesimus is to be freed, is he just a special case? If so, why? |
Basic phonics. |
arJ, I don’t think that issue is specifically addressed in this letter. I’ve already said previously on this thread that I think slavery is incompatible with the teachings of Christ in the new testament, and I stand by that, but just based on what Paul says to Philemon, I’m not sure that it creates any obligation to do anything. Paul makes a request that Philemon receive Onesimus back forever, not as a servant but as a brother. If Philemon were to do that, you could imagine him extrapolating from that and freeing all slaves that became Christians, or all slaves in general, but I don’t think Paul is requiring or even asking him to do that. I think Paul is making this special request concerning Onesimus because he has come to feel about Onesimus as if he were his own son:
These verses show that Paul could, by authority of his office in the priesthood (I suppose), order Philemon to do as he asks, but instead, because of his love for Philemon, he’s only asking on behalf of Onesimus, whom he has come to regard as a son. My guess is that, at the time this letter was written, most Christians (possibly even including Paul) did not feel that slavery was incompatible with Christianity. But because Paul came to regard Onesimus so highly, and love him as a son, he sent him back to Philemon to ask that he be forgiven for whatever wrong he did previously and freed from servitude to become a brother in the gospel (meaning that he could be a missionary and help in the work of the Church). Paul makes no request regarding other slaves, either because he knows there are none in Philemon’s house, or because he doesn’t know the circumstances and doesn’t want to presume to make requests concerning them, or because slavery in general is a fact of life which Paul does not, at the time of this letter, see as incompatible with the gospel. Or perhaps for all these reasons. annegb: The way I understand it, basic phonics rarely applies to foreign languages or proper names and especially proper names in foreign languages. But in this case I think you do have the majority on your side so you may be right. |
BTW, I just listened to it on LDS.org and in the reading of this book on audio, the reader pronounces it the second way. I’m not saying this means that way is correct, but it is more evidence in favor of that pronunciation. |
Like fillet mignon but missing a syllable? |
No. Go listen to it on LDS.org. |
Guys, the Bible is written in English. Using English phonics. If it were pronounced the 2nd way, it would be spelled “Fileemon.” Whoever read what you listened to pronounced it wrong. “PH” with “il” is pronounced “fil.” It’s a rule. |
well in the book of colossians you discover that onesimus is from colossae and that this whole thing happens there. Also you discover that Paul has not actually met Philemon. Another thing you will notice is that unlike other Pauline epistles Philemon has absolutely no exposition- the whole thing is exhortation. This is probably because it was sent along with colossians and the exposition takes place there and this letter is a response to Paul’s teaching there. Then when you look in colossians, right after Paul transitions from his exposition (teaching) to his exhortation(urging) the first thing he says is that In Christ we are no longer seperated by Jew or gentile, slave or free. God sees those who have faith in Him as His Children regardless of their temporal position as a slave or not. And while God does not condemn slavery he does say to treat them well, knowing That God will repay evil. I think that God does not particularly care if people have slaves, but he is hugely concerned with how you treat people regardless of who they are, because who a man may see as a mere slave unworthy of anything , God sees as a man worthy of love and will avenge those who did wrong to them. |
annegb, I’m not sure that rule is really a rule. I’ve certainly never heard that before. Also, as you know, the Bible was not originally written in English, it was only later translated into English. As you may also know, the names of people stayed largely the same. In other words, there is no way to translate most names into an equivalent name in English, you just have to leave it the same and spell it the bast you can. Thus, English phonetic rules may not apply to names in the Bible. In any event, I’m sure that the person reading the scriptures on LDS.org is aware of the possible pronunciations and used the one he (or possibly the Church) considered to be the most correct. Thus, I’m going to stick with Fie-LEE-mon. |
DAW, what you say about Collossians sounds right to me, although I’ve never heard that Paul had not met Philemon. I do think God condemns slavery, because slavery restricts agency, which God cares about very much. I think it just wasn’t a top priority for God to condemn slavery at the time Paul was writing, probably in part because Paul didn’t ask about it. God rarely gives us revelations we aren’t asking for. |
