Why Do Niggas Give the NOI a Pass On Murkin' Malcolm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
The Nation was infiltrated by government agents and they are the ones who took out Malcolm... Although they (NOI) had animosity towards the brother, they still loved him

Dont believe half of what you learn in school or hear discussed, its all white washed Anglo-Saxon bias reiterated like a child hood game of telephone
 
32DaysOfInfiniti;6199582 said:
The Nation was infiltrated by government agents and they are the ones who took out Malcolm... Although they (NOI) had animosity towards the brother, they still loved him

Dont believe half of what you learn in school or hear discussed, its all white washed Anglo-Saxon bias reiterated like a child hood game of telephone

Are they the same dudes that got out last year? I think one or two returned to the NOI.

They felt he was a trader and they treated him like one.
 
32DaysOfInfiniti;6199582 said:
The Nation was infiltrated by government agents and they are the ones who took out Malcolm... Although they (NOI) had animosity towards the brother, they still loved him

Dont believe half of what you learn in school or hear discussed, its all white washed Anglo-Saxon bias reiterated like a child hood game of telephone
it's funny you play the "there's disinformation out there" card when there's guys in the NOI that benefited from fucking over Malcolm AND would have every reason to just pass the buck to "shadowy government forces"

don't believe what you learn and hear goes both ways, you know

 
janklow;6157196 said:
blackamerica;6148245 said:
The government was obviously behind it, but used the NOI as a scapegoat.
why would they even need to when you clearly have notable NOI figures who wanted him dead and actively talked about it?

frankly, talking "the government did it" is just what NOI guys want you to believe to deflect blame away from them

I am more of the mind the Government watched and may have thrown fuel with Propaganda attacks and misinformation. The government just needs to let most of us act against our best interest in emotional states to get us to off one another so they never even need to pull the trigger just whisper in a ear sit back and watch the show...
 
Soloman the Wise;6205479 said:
janklow;6157196 said:
blackamerica;6148245 said:
The government was obviously behind it, but used the NOI as a scapegoat.
why would they even need to when you clearly have notable NOI figures who wanted him dead and actively talked about it?

frankly, talking "the government did it" is just what NOI guys want you to believe to deflect blame away from them

I am more of the mind the Government watched and may have thrown fuel with Propaganda attacks and misinformation. The government just needs to let most of us act against our best interest in emotional states to get us to off one another so they never even need to pull the trigger just whisper in a ear sit back and watch the show...

it's documented that this went on with the panthers...
 
young_reezy;6205508 said:
Soloman the Wise;6205479 said:
janklow;6157196 said:
blackamerica;6148245 said:
The government was obviously behind it, but used the NOI as a scapegoat.
why would they even need to when you clearly have notable NOI figures who wanted him dead and actively talked about it?

frankly, talking "the government did it" is just what NOI guys want you to believe to deflect blame away from them

I am more of the mind the Government watched and may have thrown fuel with Propaganda attacks and misinformation. The government just needs to let most of us act against our best interest in emotional states to get us to off one another so they never even need to pull the trigger just whisper in a ear sit back and watch the show...

it's documented that this went on with the panthers...

The government was a little more active in that case but yeah essentially the same shit they have gotten more slick about it over the years folks just do not get it. The government is representative of us as a people and as fucked up as our Government is as fucked up as our society is in spades. There are very few of us that are legitimately into critical free thinking these days most subscribe to media propaganda, jackass legacy and scripted reality shows for their attention and to do the thinking for them...
 
Soloman the Wise;6205479 said:
I am more of the mind the Government watched and may have thrown fuel with Propaganda attacks and misinformation.
at the very least, you probably have some of that going on. it's more that we don't need a shadowy government conspiracy for someone to get killed over some bullshit.

 
Maximus you gotta understand that these wise knowledge god NOI heads that haven't converted to real (Sunni, FUCK OFF SHIA) Islam yet will cape for Elijah & the NOI harder than a Republican for Bush circa 2002. They got all these convenient talking points about how Malcolm didn't really mean all those truthful statements he made about Elijah being Shawn Kemp status w/ how many kids. Noooooo Malcolm was killed by the CIA or something according to them. Or maybe the Jews. Just like, ANYBODY but the NOI members that the audience saw shoot Malcolm before righteously whippin they asses from the ballroom to the street, right? Yeah, let's ignore the fact that the NOI was the niggas who threw dat molotov that bounced off his daughter's window. He wasn't looking for THE KLAN in that famous photo w/ the M-1 Garand and the window.....

 
Last edited:
Swiffness!;6220294 said:
Maximus you gotta understand that these wise knowledge god NOI heads that haven't converted to real (Sunni, FUCK OFF SHIA) Islam yet will cape for Elijah & the NOI harder than a Republican for Bush circa 2002. They got all these convenient talking points about how Malcolm didn't really mean all those truthful statements he made about Elijah being Shawn Kemp status w/ how many kids. Noooooo Malcolm was killed by the CIA or something according to them. Or maybe the Jews. Just like, ANYBODY but the NOI members that the audience saw shoot Malcolm before righteously whippin they asses from the ballroom to the street, right? Yeah, let's ignore the fact that the NOI was the niggas who threw dat molotov that bounced off his daughter's window. He wasn't looking for THE KLAN in that famous photo w/ the M-1 Garand and the window.....
note: M1 carbine, but otherwise i am co-signing you

it's also worth noting, because people seem to overlook this for some reason, that even if you think THEM had NOTHING to do with it and never would have wanted it to happen (ahahahaha), members of the NOI could have done it because of the massive amount of anti-Malcolm rhetoric floating around. oh, he's outed THEM as a serial adulterer and gone on from the Nation to do other and bigger things? no reason for hard feelings there!
 
Mormons generally affirm, as do orthodox Christians, that the death of Jesus Christ made the offering of sacrifices, and in particular animal sacrifices, obsolete. LDS publications have repeatedly affirmed this principle:

“The law of sacrifice was ended upon the cross and a new era was inaugurated, the era of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ which would give men the opportunity to serve God in the spirit of love.”—Joseph L. Wirthlin, Conference Report, April 1948, 144.

“The sacrifice which the Father gave of his Only Begotten Son ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood.”—A. Theodore Tuttle, “The Message of the Restoration,” Ensign(Conference Report), June 1971, 69.

"... it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets. " -Joseph Smith

“The sacrificial offerings that were part of the law of Moses foreshadowed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and ended when it was accomplished (Alma 34:13; 3 Ne. 9:19). Thus his atoning sacrifice fulfilled the law of Moses and was the great and the last sacrifice.”—“Great and Last Sacrifice,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion

“With the sacrifice of Jesus, ‘the performances and ordinances of the Law of Moses’ were fulfilled (4 Ne. 1:12), and his death ended the practice of sacrifices on an altar. To his disciples in the western continents, Jesus said that he would no longer accept burnt offerings, but that anyone who believes in him should offer a broken heart and a contrite spirit (3 Ne. 9:19-20; cf. D&C 59:8).”—Gloria Jean Thomas, “Sacrifice,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1248.

Mormons believe that in 1829 John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and conferred on them the priesthood of Aaron. John supposedly told Joseph and Oliver that the priesthood “shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness” (D&C 13). At least some Mormons who have commented on this statement have explained it to refer to something other than literal animal sacrifices:

“It does not seem probable that this offering will be a burnt offering. The coming of Christ ended the Mosaic law. The earlier sacrifices were in similitude of the coming sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ. After His crucifixion, death, and resurrection, the sacrament was instituted to keep His sacrifice in constant living memory. It seems more probable that the offering in righteousness, which will terminate the functions of the sons of Levi under the Levitical Priesthood, will be the full acceptance of the gospel, when their Priesthood will come under the direction of the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood.”—John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 246.

Joseph Smith himself, early in his teaching, agreed that God instituted animal sacrifice only for the period leading up to the first coming of Christ:

“…the ordinance or institution of offering blood in sacrifice, was only designed to be performed till Christ was offered up and shed His blood—as said before—that man might look forward in faith to that time…. But we will recollect that Abraham offered sacrifice, and notwithstanding this, had the Gospel preached to him. That the offering of sacrifice was only to point the mind forward to Christ, we infer from these remarkable words of Jesus to the Jews: ‘Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad’ (John viii:56).” Joseph Smith (Jan. 22, 1834), in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 60.

However, in 1840, Joseph took a different position. He argued that literal animal sacrifices would be an ongoing part of the restored priesthood before and even after the second coming of Christ:

“Thus we behold the keys of this Priesthood consisted in obtaining the voice of Jehovah that He talked with him [Noah] in a familiar and friendly manner, that He continued to him the keys, the covenants, the power and the glory, with which He blessed Adam at the beginning; and the offering of sacrifice, which also shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord….

… it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. We frequently have mention made of the offering of sacrifice by the servants of the Most High in ancient days, prior to the law of Moses; which ordinances will be continued when the Priesthood is restored with all its authority, power and blessings….

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.

It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time? The Priesthood has descended in a regular line from father to son, through their succeeding generations.”—Joseph Smith (Oct. 5, 1840), in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,, 171-73.

Apparently very little has said been said about these statements in the 170 years since Joseph Smith made them. Joseph Fielding Smith quoted and affirmed what Joseph Smith had said and offered only this brief comment:

“In the restoration of all things, these ancient practices which were given in the beginning—not the carnal law—and which had a bearing on the coming of Jesus Christ, will be restored. That sacrifice by blood should continue to be necessary forever, we need not suppose to be the case.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:59.

LDS writer Rodney Turner, in his exposition of Jesus’ Upper Room teaching in the Gospels, affirms the usual view:

“The death of the Lamb of God at about the ninth hour (3 P.M.) the following afternoon officially ended the practice of animal sacrifice that had been instituted in the days of Adam.”—Rodney Turner, “The Farewell of Jesus,” in Studies in Scripture, Volume 5: The Gospels, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Robert L. Millet (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1986), 406.

 
But a comment tucked away in an endnote adds: “According to Joseph Smith, the pre-Mosaic practice of animal sacrifice will be reinstituted in connection with the restitution of all things ‘when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified’” (425). Turner offers no explanation.

Bruce McConkie quotes at length from Joseph’s 1840 remarks about sacrifices in the Restoration and offers this explanation: “To complete the restoration of all things, apparently on a one-time basis, sacrifices will again be offered in this dispensation” (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., 666). In support of this interpretation, he emphasizes the single word “entirely” in Joseph Smith’s statement, “it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away.” However, Joseph explicitly says that “the offering of sacrifice…will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation.”

It would seem that this teaching of Joseph Smith is little known among Mormons and little understood even among those who know about it. In context, Joseph’s teaching on this point is part of a larger picture. He believed that the Christian gospel had been preached before the first coming of Christ, including explicit references to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (found repeatedly throughout the Book of Mormon, for example), so that the message was the same before and after the coming of Christ. Furthermore, he came to the view that the people of God needed the same priesthood and the same ordinances after Christ’s coming as before it. He expected a single temple to be built as part of the Restoration. Thus, he stated in that 1840 sermon that sacrifices would be offered again “when the Temple of the Lord shall be built.” The big picture, then, is that in Smith’s teaching the people of God in the Restoration need to have the temple, priesthood, and ordinances of the ancient Israelites fully restored—even including animal sacrifices. It is a surprising claim, but it becomes less surprising when one looks at the idea in the context of Joseph’s broader Restorationist theology. What remains very surprising is that LDS leaders and teachers have given this claim so little attention.

Part of the reason for this neglect may simply be that the idea of animal sacrifices has little appeal in modern society. Getting married in a beautiful temple ceremony is one thing; sacrificing a calf on an altar is quite another. Perhaps a more significant reason for the neglect of this teaching of Joseph Smith, however, is that LDS leaders and teachers recognize that the idea of a restoration of animal sacrifice is highly problematic. Such an idea detracts from the completeness and finality of Jesus Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross for our sins. Yet Mormons can scarcely take the position that Joseph Smith was wrong on this matter. His doctrine of a restoration of animal sacrifice, then, is something Mormons would be hard-pressed to affirm or deny—which may explain why few have said anything about it.

 
These "sacrifices" are ritual slayings of threats ( see cultural movements, opposition movements ) and these regular offenders of local customs are built up and placed on a pedestal and summarily executed in public ( see lynch ) for the masses to witness as to build a rapport of subordination with the affected party ( see MLK, Malcolm X), who are nothing but regular people. It's relatively cultural.
 
Swiffness!;6220294 said:
Maximus you gotta understand that these wise knowledge god NOI heads that haven't converted to real (Sunni, FUCK OFF SHIA) Islam yet will cape for Elijah & the NOI harder than a Republican for Bush circa 2002. They got all these convenient talking points about how Malcolm didn't really mean all those truthful statements he made about Elijah being Shawn Kemp status w/ how many kids. Noooooo Malcolm was killed by the CIA or something according to them. Or maybe the Jews. Just like, ANYBODY but the NOI members that the audience saw shoot Malcolm before righteously whippin they asses from the ballroom to the street, right? Yeah, let's ignore the fact that the NOI was the niggas who threw dat molotov that bounced off his daughter's window. He wasn't looking for THE KLAN in that famous photo w/ the M-1 Garand and the window.....

Word. I posted this same thread on Tariq Nasheed's "United Players of America," and niggas capped in exactly the same fashion you said they would.

The NOI didn't kill Malcolm X. YouTune Dick Gregory, he'll tell you all about how agents killed Malcolm. It was a ploy used to divide blacks within and outside the NOI. Also, all the women came forward (along with their adult sons/daughter by Elijah Muhammad) to defend the case of Elijah Muhammad. None were underage or put against their will. Black agents were put in every organization (as they still are). Dont believe the hype, brother. Elijah, no Farrakhan had anything to do with the death of Malcolm X. Tnorth84 Why Do Niggas Give the NOI a Pass On Murkin' Malcolmhttp://upasite.freeforums.org/why-do-niggas-give-the-noi-a-pass-on-murkin-malcolm-t9159.html?
 
Swiffness!;6220294 said:
Maximus you gotta understand that these wise knowledge god NOI heads that haven't converted to real (Sunni, FUCK OFF SHIA) Islam yet will cape for Elijah & the NOI harder than a Republican for Bush circa 2002. They got all these convenient talking points about how Malcolm didn't really mean all those truthful statements he made about Elijah being Shawn Kemp status w/ how many kids. Noooooo Malcolm was killed by the CIA or something according to them. Or maybe the Jews. Just like, ANYBODY but the NOI members that the audience saw shoot Malcolm before righteously whippin they asses from the ballroom to the street, right? Yeah, let's ignore the fact that the NOI was the niggas who threw dat molotov that bounced off his daughter's window. He wasn't looking for THE KLAN in that famous photo w/ the M-1 Garand and the window.....

Word. I posted this same thread on Tariq Nasheed's "United Players of America," and niggas capped in exactly the same fashion you said they would.

The NOI didn't kill Malcolm X. YouTune Dick Gregory, he'll tell you all about how agents killed Malcolm. It was a ploy used to divide blacks within and outside the NOI. Also, all the women came forward (along with their adult sons/daughter by Elijah Muhammad) to defend the case of Elijah Muhammad. None were underage or put against their will. Black agents were put in every organization (as they still are). Dont believe the hype, brother. Elijah, no Farrakhan had anything to do with the death of Malcolm X. Tnorth84 Why Do Niggas Give the NOI a Pass On Murkin' Malcolmhttp://upasite.freeforums.org/why-do-niggas-give-the-noi-a-pass-on-murkin-malcolm-t9159.html?

Not that there's a lot replies to the thread, but cats on that board are conveniently forgetting that the Nation was none too pleased with Malcolm when he left, and yes I agree that the government was complicit in Malcolm's assassination, the government didn't act solely on it's on, and the Nation didn't have a problem with Malcolm being dead. If this was truly a disagreement on philosophy, then I sure somebody would have told Malcolm that forces were in place to have him killed. It's like Janklow said, "Muthafuckas benefited from Malcolm's death and fucked him over."

 

Members online

No members online now.

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
36
Views
0
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…