136 replies to this topic

[Sethbag]

Hammer, let me get this straight.

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Noah got plastered drinking wine and passed out naked in his tent.

His son Ham, entered the tent, saw that Noah was naked, and went out and told his two brothers.

His two brothers, Shem and Japheth, took a blanket or garment of some sort and backed into the tent, keeping their gaze averted so they would not see their father naked.  They covered his body.

When Noah woke up, he somehow knew that Ham had seen him while he was naked, whereupon he pronounced a curse on Canaan, Ham's son, that Canaan's lineage would be servants forever.

Ok, now this is why the blacks could not hold the priesthood?

Are you joking?  A son saw his old man passed out drunk and naked in his tent, and for that heinous crime an entire race of people were cut off from the priesthood and temple ordinances in the LDS church for 140 years or so?

Well, there you have it folks.

Of course, I know full well that this isn't the explanation most LDS would give.  I think Hammer's out in The Twilight Zone on this one.

But Pahoran's answer isn't all that better.  According to Pahoran, generations of LDS church prophets were all mistaken in giving their speculation as to why the blacks were denied the priesthood, but thinks it's 100% for sure that the ban in the first place came from God.  Pahoran, why isn't it just as likely that the original black priesthood ban was just as uninspired as you claim all their justifications were?  While they're getting everything else wrong, why isn't it just as likely that they got the original ban wrong too?

[Warship]

thesometimesaint,

thesometimesaint, on Nov 5 2006, 12:46 PM, said:

Warship:

Possible correlation.

http://history-nz.org/maori3.html

Skin tatooing is interesting. But I'm not aware of it being widespread in Central America. Some other interesting options are the wearing of enemies' skins and skin painting...painting the skin by smoke in Mesoamerica particularly caught my attention because of this practice being metioned in the bible.  

Quote

EpJer.1
[20] Their faces are blacked through the smoke that cometh out of the temple.

It is used here negatively against babylonian temple practices. I find that interesting in that the girdle garments are are also temple imagery and their being "black"ened with blood is also viewed as negative.

Although those candidates are interesting, I feel all the textual evidence points to them being the skin girdle garments as I argued for in the thread I linked to last post.

It seems all the physical markers (except the red dot in the forehead) of the Lamanites can be found in the bible in an Isaiah passage Nephi quotes and "likens" unto his people.

They include:

1.Nakedness
2. Bald head
3. The girdle garments

Ofcourse one can find references to these elsewhere besides the Isaiah passage.

Edited by Warship, 06 November 2006 - 03:34 AM.

[flavo]

Quote

Thatâ??s the real question isn't it, if the Lord intended to withhold the Priesthood why did Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders give the priesthood to Elijah Abel, who was made a seventy by the Prophet Joseph, Black Pete and Walker Lewis. Please explain how one who communed with angels, ancient Prophets, the Lord and the Father could have gotten this wrong?

You quoted a lot of scriptures that don't make your case. For instance are you suggesting that the only people in this dispensation that could receive the Aaronic priesthood are direct descendants of Aaron? I know one my father who is not a descendant of Aaron according to his patriarchal blessing and he received the priesthood of Aaron before 1978.

I think most would agree that you are misusing those scriptures.

Furthermore when Christ told the Apostles to take the gospel to the gentiles I don't remember the caveat "except those black Africans". Did I miss something?

Please answer my questions.

Thanks,

JR

I think you need to read more carefully. The scriptures support the FACT that the priesthood in ancient times (not modern) was reserved to only one race. The bloodline of Abraham. The rest of the world was denied it. Christ himself, was sent only to the house of Israel. This ment that the gospel was withheld from the other cultures until after the crucufiction. Peter recieved the revelation to take the gospel to the gentiles. My point has nothing to do with the blacks in particular but that the Lord has withheld things from certain cultures or races of people until he dictated it otherwise. Please don't confuse my point to mean African Americans. I am trying to show that it has been done before, the withholding of things from others until the Lord reveals otherwise. The problem is that to many are looking at the color of the skin in respect to the withholding of the priesthood instead of the other side of the issue and that being a race of people reguardless of skin color. The Lord cursed races, blessed races, used diferent cultural differences to achieve plans. Why aren't people offended that the Lord's chosen people was one chosen culture? Why aren't people offended that the Lord chose in his earthly ministry to only go to the house of Israel? Where is all the reteric about the Lord cursing the son of Ham and the Canaanites? Where are the cultural discussions on why the Lord commanded the children of Israel to wipe out a culture? These were all done for the Lord's reasons, not man. The scriptures are full of how God used one race in favor of another, or where he used the races of man.

This issue of blacks and the priesthood as being something terrible is only one more stone that is being cast by those who do not accept Joseph Smith as a prohpet. It is not a racial thing, as far as discrimination against blacks, but a spiritual thing. For God's own reason was the black race denied the priesthood. For whatever reason it could have just as well been the Chinese, Irish, or any other culture. But because it happened to be the African American race that have a history of being discriminated against it seems an easy fan to flame the fire of speculation.

My whole point is to get people to look beyond the color of the skin and see that maybe it goes deeper. There was more contention in the Lord's church when the gentiles started being baptised than there is now with this issue. Within the church itself there is no great problem. The racial offense seems to be from outside the church. It is wrong for anyone to deny the fact that God himself has used the races of man that had his favor and also those that had found His condemnation.

[Moessers]

The church was under a looming potential threat to lose their tax exempt status at their schools for racist policies.

The temple in Brazil had no one to man it because everybody down there had negro blood.

Then... TA-DA!!!! A revelation...

[thesometimesaint]

Warship:

I know that some South and North American Indians used tatoos. But like you I am not aware of any Central American ones that do. It is a case of I just don't know. I'd be interested to find out for sure.

[Pahoran]

Moessers, on Nov 6 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

The church was under a looming potential threat to lose their tax exempt status at their schools for racist policies.

Really?  We frequently hear this claim.  Are you, alone of all those who make it, able to document it?

Quote

The temple in Brazil had no one to man it because everybody down there had negro blood.

Have you ever heard of temple missionaries?

Quote

Then... TA-DA!!!! A revelation...

Have you ever heard of the post hoc fallacy?

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Regards,
Pahoran

[KevinG]

Moessers, on Nov 6 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

The church was under a looming potential threat to lose their tax exempt status at their schools for racist policies.

The temple in Brazil had no one to man it because everybody down there had negro blood.

Then... TA-DA!!!! A revelation...

That was possibly the most superficial rendition of the Priesthood issue in Brazil that I have ever heard.  Perhaps I should get you in touch with an actual Brazillian who lived through that time (I know a couple).

There were many Brazillians ordained to the Priesthood prior to 1978 and some of them were pretty darn dark skinned.  Nice try though.

[AKS]

Warship, on Nov 6 2006, 03:29 AM, said:

Although those candidates are interesting, I feel all the textual evidence points to them being the skin girdle garments as I argued for in the thread I linked to last post.

Oh yes, I'm sure this verse referring to lion cloths  

2 Nephi 5:21
21 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.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their
iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their
seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And
the Lord spake it, and it was done.


Frankly I think its absolutely remarkable that you can glean dark loin cloths from this passage.  How would a darkened girdle cause a whole population to not be enticing but loathsome?  And the delightsome, white people better not mix seed or their offspring may also be cursed with black girdles.  ooohhhhhh.  

[Hammer]

Sethbag, on Nov 6 2006, 02:45 AM, said:

Hammer, let me get this straight.

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Noah got plastered drinking wine and passed out naked in his tent.

His son Ham, entered the tent, saw that Noah was naked, and went out and told his two brothers.

His two brothers, Shem and Japheth, took a blanket or garment of some sort and backed into the tent, keeping their gaze averted so they would not see their father naked.  They covered his body.

When Noah woke up, he somehow knew that Ham had seen him while he was naked, whereupon he pronounced a curse on Canaan, Ham's son, that Canaan's lineage would be servants forever.

Ok, now this is why the blacks could not hold the priesthood?

Are you joking?  A son saw his old man passed out drunk and naked in his tent, and for that heinous crime an entire race of people were cut off from the priesthood and temple ordinances in the LDS church for 140 years or so?

Well, there you have it folks.

Of course, I know full well that this isn't the explanation most LDS would give.  I think Hammer's out in The Twilight Zone on this one.

But Pahoran's answer isn't all that better.  According to Pahoran, generations of LDS church prophets were all mistaken in giving their speculation as to why the blacks were denied the priesthood, but thinks it's 100% for sure that the ban in the first place came from God.  Pahoran, why isn't it just as likely that the original black priesthood ban was just as uninspired as you claim all their justifications were?  While they're getting everything else wrong, why isn't it just as likely that they got the original ban wrong too?

Here is some non-speculative history:

Just a word about Elijah Abel.

He was one-eighth Negro and was light of color. It is not known who ordained him or whether or not it was known at the time that he had Negro blood. He was ordained an Elder in 1836 and a Seventy in 1841.

In 1883, as a member of the Third Quorum of Seventy, he went on a mission to Canada. However in 1879, prior to his mission, in a meeting at the home of Pres A. O. Smoot, Provo, Utah leaders of the Church re-approved that the Priesthood was not for the Negro and that Elijah Abel was not to exercise any Priesthood rights. The fact that Elijah Abel was called to a mission does not necessarily imply that he participated in any baptisms or ordinations. Women serve missions and they don't exercise priesthood authority.

At this meeting in 1879, presided by Pres Taylor, the issue of priesthood and Negros was discussed. Zebedee Coltrin was questioned about what the Prophet Joseph Smith told him about it. Coltrin and Bro. Green had a disagreement about whether or not the Negro could have the priesthood. They asked Joseph. "Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head, and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, 'Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.' He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don't recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject. But I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood."

As for the early stuff...  I think the scriptures brought forth by JS are early enough, so let's start there.

Moses 5:40 And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord SET A MARK UPON CAIN, lest any finding him should kill him.

Moses 7:8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a BLACKNESS CAME UPON ALL THE CHILDREN OF CANAAN, that they were despised among all people.

Abraham 1:21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the BLOOD OF THE CANAANITES by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the BLOOD OF THE CANAANITES WAS PRESERVED IN THE LAND.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, WHICH SIGNIFIES THAT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang THAT RACE WHICH PRESERVED THE CURSE IN THE LAND.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to IMITATE that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but CURSED HIM AS PERTAINING TO THE PRIESTHOOD.

27 Now, PHARAOH BEING OF THAT LINEAGE BY WHICH HE COULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF PRIESTHOOD, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Notice that Pharaoh was a righteous man. Noah loved him and blessed him. But because of his LINEAGE, and for no other reason, he could not give him the priesthood.

In July 1831 Joseph Smith identified Negroes as the lineage of Canaan:

"The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W.W. Phelps preached to a western audience over the boundary of the United States, wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; several of the Lamanites or Indians--representative of Shem; quite a respectable number of negroes--descendants of Ham; and the balance was made up of citizens of the surrounding country..." (History of the Church 1:190)

In March 1836 Joseph Smith states on the subject of slavery & abolition that the curse of Ham is "not yet taken off" the Negroes. "After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertibly that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God. It remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame & confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant (Gen. 9:25,26) Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, & you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say, but I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come, and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel." (History of the Church 2:438-39).

Jan 1842, Joseph Smith remarks upon Negroes being "sons of Cain."

"Signed deeds for lots, to Law; transacted a variety of business in the city and office. In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the Negroes, or sons of Cain." (History of the Church 4:502)

[AKS]

Hammer, with every hateful, despicable post you submit I feel better and better about having nothing else to do with the CoJCoLDS.    

Hammer has been warned about posting opinion and not posting substance.  You need to elevate the discourse too, not bring it down. -mods

[Katzpur]

latterdayteancum, on Nov 1 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

My question to the board is how many of you do believe this revelation was received in error? And if you do not believe this what are your theories as to why the Lord did not extend the Priesthood to all worthy males sooner?

Teancum,

My question to you would be "What revelation?"  I believe that all latter-day revelations given to our prophets as doctrine can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants.  There appears to be no such revelation in the D&C.  In the article you posted, you said:

"And while we do recognize the fallibilities of our leaders, the assertion that the Lord allowed Joseph Smith to withhold the priesthood from some of His children in error, and than this error was perpetuated for over 130 years is an unwarranted and bold assertion to make based on personal opinion."

Actually, Joseph Smith never did withhold the priesthood from worthy members of the Church who were Black.  As a matter of fact, he personally ordained at least one Black man to the Priesthood.  As to why the Lord allowed Brigham Young to do so, I'm sure you already know the answer to that question.  It's called free agency.  At the 2005 FAIR Conference, a Black man named Marvin Perkins presented one of the most incredible papers on the subject of Blacks and the priesthood imaginable.  I couldn't get his remarks off my mind for days, and I will probably never forget the gist of that paper for as long as I live.  Here's one thing he said that really got me thinking:

"Thoughts and ways of life, engrained for decades and many generations don't disappear overnight, but dissipate over time when the desire to do so and effort is present.  We each grow line upon line, precept upon precept; yes even in the 1800s, as we do today.  What made a man accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and still maintain slaves?  The desire for him to extend all the blessings given him from God may have required much prayer, growth, experiences and time.  The mindset of the majority of Americans may very well have contributed to the delays in this desire.  In 1978, when the revelation was made public that all worthy males could be given the Priesthood, many left the Church.  Their desire to extend to their Black brothers and sisters, all of the blessings they enjoyed was apparently not as strong as the majority of the Saints.  There is a passage in Declaration 2 that has something to say regarding this desire:

An excerpt from Declaration 2:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers.  This in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Out of context, this short explanation will probably not have the same impact on you as it had on me.  But Brother Perkins' explanation was that there never was a revelation prohibiting Blacks from holding the priesthood.  (If there was one, maybe you can tell me where to find it.)  The revelation extending the priesthood to Blacks did not come until all members of the Quorum of the Twelve collectively had the desire to receive it.

Edited by Katzpur, 06 November 2006 - 09:24 PM.

[Hammer]

I really can't winn. When I post substance I am marked as hateful and derided by posters. When I post my opinion and my idea of doctrine, paraphrasing doctrine from scriptures and church history I am warned by the Mods for not having substance.

Really what can I do to please? Or should I worry about pleasing and just post like everyone else according to their own personality and knowledge?

Just add more scriptural citations, doctrine, history and whatever you can find.  You have a habit of making strong statements without citing these things.  We don't encourage that from defenders of the faith or critics.  -mods

[Not quite me]

Hammer, on Nov 6 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

I really can't winn. When I post substance I am marked as hateful and derided by posters. When I post my opinion and my idea of doctrine, paraphrasing doctrine from scriptures and church history I am warned by the Mods for not having substance.

Really what can I do to please? Or should I worry about pleasing and just post like everyone else according to their own personality and knowledge?

It's not you per se that makes me sad. Just this whole idea that anything goes as long as you can find some kind of justification for it in the teachings of church leaders.

[Hammer]

Not quite me, on Nov 6 2006, 09:31 PM, said:

Hammer, on Nov 6 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

I really can't winn. When I post substance I am marked as hateful and derided by posters. When I post my opinion and my idea of doctrine, paraphrasing doctrine from scriptures and church history I am warned by the Mods for not having substance.

Really what can I do to please? Or should I worry about pleasing and just post like everyone else according to their own personality and knowledge?

It's not you per se that makes me sad. Just this whole idea that anything goes as long as you can find some kind of justification for it in the teachings of church leaders.

That's just it. Who brings up these themes? Anti mormons, blacks and disgruntles. THE BLACLS NOW HAVE THE PRIESTHOOD. Why keep rehashing if you don't want to hear it?

[Not quite me]

Hammer, on Nov 6 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

Not quite me, on Nov 6 2006, 09:31 PM, said:

Hammer, on Nov 6 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

I really can't winn. When I post substance I am marked as hateful and derided by posters. When I post my opinion and my idea of doctrine, paraphrasing doctrine from scriptures and church history I am warned by the Mods for not having substance.

Really what can I do to please? Or should I worry about pleasing and just post like everyone else according to their own personality and knowledge?

It's not you per se that makes me sad. Just this whole idea that anything goes as long as you can find some kind of justification for it in the teachings of church leaders.

That's just it. Who brings up these themes? Anti mormons, blacks and disgruntles. THE BLACLS NOW HAVE THE PRIESTHOOD. Why keep rehashing if you don't want to hear it?

I didn't bring it up, so I'm not the one rehashing. If you think it's truly in the past, then say so and quit trying to justify it.

[AKS]

Hammer, on Nov 6 2006, 09:34 PM, said:

That's just it. Who brings up these themes? Anti mormons, blacks and disgruntles. THE BLACLS NOW HAVE THE PRIESTHOOD. Why keep rehashing if you don't want to hear it?

My apologies to the mods, but what about disgruntled black anti-mormons?  


I mean really Hammer, is this the way you think?  It really is quite offensive to read.

[Orpheus]

Thats enough.  No more personal swipes from anybody or you will lose posting priveledges.