Priesthood Ban Info

[GravyBoat]

Scientists say mankind was originally black. But then you insist black skin came from "adaptation."

She's insisting that white skin came from adaptation.

Oh, and I read your posts. I would like to endow Katherine with a masculine avatar. That way, she'll get more respect.

Here are a few suggestions:

Some "foo."

A sexy hawaiian investigator.

A man without a brain.

A man with half a brain. (If you've seen his institutionalized character, you'd get the joke.)

[koakaipo]

But historically, Mormons have traditionally been more accepting of blacks than other Christian denominations. It is just that the priesthood ban was a formal act while the rejection of blacks in Protestant Churches were more informal.

But why point fingers at them when it is so much more fun to highlight Mormon histor.

How have Mormons been traditionally more accepting of blacks than other Christian denominations. I don't think it's fair to make Mormons look so distinct in terms of their perceptions and attitudes and practices in regards to blacks. But I don't see how history backs up this comment.

I personally tend to comment alot on this part of our history not to be a party pooper. I think there is genuine problems in our church community when we assert everything's a-okay though. Race in our society is still very much a problem. It's not too different with our church community. We are making great strides, but how we portray and characterize the past DOES set our course for the future.

If we still have a good number of people asserting skin pigment as a curse and a mark, and by mark we do mean a mark in not a good sense either, there are divides in terms of blesseds and curseds in the community. We have the literalist notions of light and delightsome and dark and loathesome. That in turn leads to hierarchy, however informal or unofficial they might be. And we still have people worrying about getting too close to the curseds, cause goodness forbid if the cursed mate with their blessed daughter or son and curse future offspring for generations times ten. Very real problems in our community today. Not very different from secular culture either really, but there's no need to sugarcoat what challenges lie ahead for us too.

[Guest KW Graham]

== IS THAT SO??

Yes, as a matter of fact it is.

== Why did the Catholic Church have their first elected bishop in 1854?

Let's get this straight. It took the Catholic Church almost two millenia before it would ordain a black person to the priesthood. Mormonism opened up the opportunity in less than two centuries. Trust me on this, you don't want to start comparing Mormonism "racism" to that of other Christian Churchs.

== Oh, and I read your posts. I would like to endow Katherine with a masculine avatar. That way, she'll get more respect.

Oh, cry me a river. First race-baiting and now it is a "man" thing? Respect is given where respect is earned. Katherine started taking cheap shots that were uncalled for, all the while hiding under the assumption that she had actually proved something. Instead of responding to counter-arguments, she had a hissy and made it all personal. You have to be prepared to have your assertions challenged on a forum like this. Sorry.

== How have Mormons been traditionally more accepting of blacks than other Christian denominations. I don't think it's fair to make Mormons look so distinct in terms of their perceptions and attitudes and practices in regards to blacks. But I don't see how history backs up this comment.

I suggest reading Juliann's article in M201. Here are some examples:

Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.12

By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.13

The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.14

After the war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.15

By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.16

The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.17

Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.18

According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.19

About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.20

In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination

[koakaipo]

Uh, Kevin, you are proving my point.

Please look at the historical timeline of MOrmonism and how blacks were treated.

INitially, blacks were given inclusive treatment by Mormonism in various ways. We have guidelines from both the Kirkland and NAvoo temple that explain that blacks were to worship alongside whites. We have Joseph Smith saying that regardless of lineages and curses(because he did seem to reference blacks as lineages of Cain in passing previously), their potential and place was not bound by their lineage. They could raise themselves up in effect.

Now in another decade of so, we get a different view from a different leader. That blacks are cursed with both Ham and Cain's curses. That they are destined to servitude and that no one but God could lift this curse. That they had their place, and should not be treated like animals, but should not be lifted either to a place like that of whites. We see the ban instituted formally. We see black members' status degrade as well.

We see various interpretations of how to understand the ban in the coming years. We see the need to segregate socially and legally as well.

We then see a trend to segregate religiously altogether as well, where proselyting to blacks stopped.

We see some reconsideration at a certain point, where the ban becomes narrowed as administratively we see leaders administratively lifting the ban from certain ethnic groups. We see some discussion among leadership about possibly lifting the ban, but no consensus.

We see desegregation begin to happen. We see a statement that supports civil rights. We see the church internationalize. We see the problems faced with this internationalization when all of the sudden "black " and "white" don't apply like they do in the states.

We see a full circle where bans are lifted, inclusion becomes the motto for proselyting to everyone, and we see a more active acceptance of integration.

Your post is essentially showing a similar sort of trend among other churches, where time and place and culture seem to drive how people viewed blacks too. That's the point-Mormons aren't as bad as our critics claim we are in terms of race relations historically, we aren't as distinct as they make us out to be when they look at it historically. And we aren't as good or progressive as Mormons sometimes claim we are either. That was my very point from the start.

[ave maria]

Let's get this straight. It took the Catholic Church almost two millenia before it would ordain a black person to the priesthood.

Upon what are you basing that assumption? It doesn't square with the historical record.

[DragonLord]

Define these cheap shots of Katherine's that were exorbitantly uncalled for?

== IS THAT SO??

Yes, as a matter of fact it is.

== Why did the Catholic Church have their first elected bishop in 1854?

Let's get this straight. It took the Catholic Church almost two millenia before it would ordain a black person to the priesthood. Mormonism opened up the opportunity in less than two centuries. Trust me on this, you don't want to start comparing Mormonism "racism" to that of other Christian Churchs.

== Oh, and I read your posts. I would like to endow Katherine with a masculine avatar. That way, she'll get more respect.

Oh, cry me a river. First race-baiting and now it is a "man" thing? Respect is given where respect is earned. Katherine started taking cheap shots that were uncalled for, all the while hiding under the assumption that she had actually proved something. Instead of responding to counter-arguments, she had a hissy and made it all personal. You have to be prepared to have your assertions challenged on a forum like this. Sorry.

== How have Mormons been traditionally more accepting of blacks than other Christian denominations. I don't think it's fair to make Mormons look so distinct in terms of their perceptions and attitudes and practices in regards to blacks. But I don't see how history backs up this comment.

I suggest reading Juliann's article in M201. Here are some examples:

Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.12

By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.13

The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.14

After the war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.15

By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.16

The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.17

Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.18

According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.19

About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.20

In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination

[GravyBoat]

Let's get this straight. It took the Catholic Church almost two millenia before it would ordain a black person to the priesthood. Mormonism opened up the opportunity in less than two centuries. Trust me on this, you don't want to start comparing Mormonism "racism" to that of other Christian Churchs.

Yeah, for God's church, that ain't half-bad. Consider that God for the Catholics had already opened up the ability to use His authority and His name despite the fact that they're not the true church in our eyes. Are they heretical because they jumped the gun on God's word, or did they truly feel it necessary to not to be a respecter of persons, kind of like God doesn't? Sounds to me like the Catholics are likening the scriptures unto themselves.

== How have Mormons been traditionally more accepting of blacks than other Christian denominations. I don't think it's fair to make Mormons look so distinct in terms of their perceptions and attitudes and practices in regards to blacks. But I don't see how history backs up this comment.

I suggest reading Juliann's article in M201. Here are some examples

You DO know that Juliann believes that the ban was a policy and not inspired, right?

[Moksha]

== I have no response to that. I'm just mystified that a seemingly intelligent person with any knowledge of biology would believe that dark skin is a curse from God and not a human adaptation. To me, it's absolutely absurd. But, I can't argue with someone who doesn't want to know.

Was that directed towards me?

As Jan pointed out, a curse or "mark," call it whatever you want. I have no problem referring to it as a mark. The fact is it has been traditionally held in Mormonism that the black skin was no "adaptation" by the sun. It was a "mark" God decided to do, to set them apart. The reasons for doing so is really irrelevant to the fact that Mormonism has consistently taught this. In any event, it is pretty solid in LDS teaching, so your problem is with the Church not me. I'm just remaining faithful to what I was taught by my own faith. If you think that makes me less intelligent, then so be it.

Ultimately, as I noted before, your explanation has not been proved by science. It is just a wild theory you've uncritically accepted - perhaps for the sake of political correctness- at the expense of rendering your own faith superfluous.

Forgive me if I don't indulge in every liberal Mormon hypothesis as it arises.

PS: And for teh record, I'm quite "mystified" as to why someone would come on a religious forum and be "mystified" because some people prefer religious explanations over the allegedly "scientific."

K: I assume your rejection of the scientific explanation for skin color and the acceptance of a disavowed curse is due to your own inherent racial beliefs. I wish you would not label them as belonging to the Church or anything assocated with it.

It is detrimental to the Church to be associated with those type of beliefs.

[AKS]

K: I assume your rejection of the scientific explanation for skin color and the acceptance of a disavowed curse is due to your own inherent racial beliefs.

I tend to agree. Perhaps K has some irrational biases that he wishes to justify.

[Guest KW Graham]

== I assume your rejection of the scientific explanation for skin color and the acceptance of a disavowed curse is due to your own inherent racial beliefs.

Of course you do, this is how you protect your so-called "scientific explanation" (as if it were the only explanation for which there are no other scientists who disagree). Adopt a politically correct thesis that nobody would dare disagree with for fear of being labelled a "racist." This is how the afro-centirts got away with their ridiculous mantra for so long. Everyone was afraid to confront its stupidity for fear of being labelled.

Now as far as our discussion here, why would anyone ever challenge the notion that they themselves came from a black race? Couldn't happen to have something to do with the fact that the argument is not sound? No. Never! Let's be lazy and simple-minded and call them a racist. That is much easier to accept. If it were reversed, and scientists said mankind was originally white, then all hell would break loose. The black folk would naturally feel highly offended and our politically correct sensibilities would attack the scientist for his racial overtones. It is OK to be proud of a black heritage. That requires our respect. But to be proud of a white heritage is political suicide. There is simply no way to express it without being a racist!

The argument that the oldest human bones were found in Africa, therefore mankind originated in Africa, is among the dumbest arguments proposed by these mystery scientists - nobody has yet to present names. By this logic, sharks originated in the foothills of Columbus, Georgia.

Of all the back and forth bobbing and weaving, nobody has even begun to explain how something that was supposed to be black in the beginning "adapted" to become black later on. It makes no sense. I pointed this out to Katherine. It was a simple statement of fact that pointed out the inconsistency in her argument. How did she respond....

I have no response to that. I'm just mystified that a seemingly intelligent person with any knowledge of biology would believe that dark skin is a curse from God and not a human adaptation. To me, it's absolutely absurd. But, I can't argue with someone who doesn't want to know.

By turning the discussion into an appeal to emotion, she avoided every opportunity to make her case intelligently. Instead of simply answering the question, Katherine expresses how she is "mystified" that I could believe something, for which I never said I believed in the first place. She calls it "

[Guest KW Graham]

It is simply dishonest to refer to Katherine's proposal as THE "scientific explanation." Who do you guys think you're kidding anyway? Even if we want to be lazy and take the nonchalant method of research, the internet will provide more than enough evidence to prove this is a debate for which there is no clear consensus among scientists.

Jared Diamond (1999 winner of the Medal of Science award and UCLA evolutionary biologist) points out flaws in these theories:

"The most obvious -- and most discussed -- aspect of human geographical variability is skin color. Most people would say that skin color becomes darker towards the Equator to give more protection against tropical sunlight. But that claimed correlation of skin color with latitude is riddled with exceptions, and that functional interpretation of the correlation is debated. Most scientists shy away from the whole subject because it so interests racists, and the motives of scientists studying it become suspect."

"Among tropical peoples," he writes "anthropologists love to stress the dark skins of African blacks, people of the southern Indian peninsula, and New Guineans and love to forget the pale skins of Amazonian Indians and Southeast Asians living at the same latitudes.

And also from his book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee:

With at least eight theories in the running, we can hardly claim to understand why people from sunny climates have dark skins. That in itself doesn't refute the idea that, somehow, natural selection caused the evolution of dark skins in sunny climates. After all, dark skins could have multiple advantages, which scientists may sort out someday. Instead, the heaviest objection to any theory based on natural selection is that the association between dark skins and sunny climates is a very imperfect one. Native peoples have very dark skins in some areas receiving relatively little sunlight, like Tasmania, while skin color is only medium in sunny areas of tropical Southeast Asia. No American Indians have black skins, not even in the sunniest parts of the New World. when one takes cloud cover into account, the world's most dimly lit areas, receiving a daily average of under 3.5 hours of sunlight, include parts of equatorial West Africa, South China, and Scandinavia, inhabited respectively by some of the world's blackest, yellowest, and palest peoples! Among the Solomon Islands, all of which share a similar climate, jet-black people and lighter people replace each other over short distances. Evidently, sunlight has not been the sole selective factor that influenced skin color. (pg. 115)

In other words, these scientists only take into account the data that serves their proposed theories. The rest is ignored. So it turns out "racism" isn't the only reason to reject these theories after all. I've got scientists backing me up as well. In fact, I'm the only one who has actually presented a scientist as a reference. Here is another response by Vince Calder, a scientist from Berkley:

First, it is not evident that people living near the equator have darker skin because of protection from the sun, or that people living in northern climates have light skin to increase the production of vitamin D. Does it? Where are the data?

[Smith]

If it were reversed, and scientists said mankind was originally white, then all hell would break loose. The black folk would naturally feel highly offended and our politically correct sensibilities would attack the scientist for his racial overtones. It is OK to be proud of a black heritage. That requires our respect. But to be proud of a white heritage is political suicide. There is simply no way to express it without being a racist!

Reminds me of something That Andy Rooney said:

Andy Rooney said on "60 Minutes" a few weeks back:

I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens... Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

[koakaipo]

KW: "If it were reversed, and scientists said mankind was originally white, then all hell would break loose. The black folk would naturally feel highly offended and our politically correct sensibilities would attack the scientist for his racial overtones. It is OK to be proud of a black heritage. That requires our respect. But to be proud of a white heritage is political suicide. There is simply no way to express it without being a racist! "

me:So, wait, let me get this straight-there's some sort of conspiracy on behalf of a good chunk of the scientific community for the sole purpose of----raising black people's self esteem? Come on, you don't really believe this do you? I think most people are arguing with you mainly because you are arguing(I don't know if you are simply debating or believe it either) that it's just as plausible to subscribe to the notion that the mark of Cain was black. That scripturally one can argue why people are black today.

But that's not a scriptural understanding-it's a traditional understanding that predates MOrmonism. I gave you a post earlier back that shows how hard it is to use a scriptural argument to explain the black race.

I don't think we need to over politicize this either, making this into racism vs. reverse racism. We all have crosses to bear from the society we live in. But the crosses to bear as a black in America is unique since race plays such a big role in our processing socially. Why can't we accept that, and not belittle it? It's just a whole different experience being black in a society that is so race conscious. That experience does extend to experiences within our church too. Ideally church should be a refuge from all the crap that goes on in society. Sometimes unfortunately, we fall short of that goal as a community.

[katherine the great]

Now the argument, as I understand it, must be that the white man came about through environmental adaptation, but the only evidence provided by Katherine points the other direction. Man becomes darker, not lighter, because of the environment.

Boy you are really out there! Adaptation takes place over thousands of years. It's influenced by many variables. I was assuming that you had a basic knowledge of environment and biology when I posted. Skin color can adapt by becoming darker or lighter, but it takes place over many, many generations. It's fruitless to argue with you on this because you don't know the basics of human evolution and adaptation. You comments make me think that you think it's all some vast conspiracy to disprove the religious belief that dark skin is a curse.

Oh, and by the way, there actually is at least one scientist who believes that the original skin color was white. Guess what? All hell didn't break loose. No one cares because the point isn't our original color. The point is that our skin color is the result of environmental adaptation and sexual selection. She believes that our skin color was like our Chimpanzee cousins and that as we moved out into the open sunlight and started migrating, all different skin colors came about. This happened over a period of more than a hundred thousand years. The modern people with the oldest dna are the San bushmen. Their skin is dark brown. There are people with lighter and darker skin than them. It's not related to worthiness, but to what suits their environment the best (or sometimes sexual selection.)

[GravyBoat]

You say that you're pro-policy? I'm not quite sure how you define the ban being policy, especially considering some of your posts:

But priesthood restriction according to race is not racism, IMO. Strict racism is when one race feels it is superior to another race, because of its race.

Are you so sure of this? Then why do you have a belief that the priesthood ban was policy, and not inspired doctrine?

This is my point, Graham. You can't tell someone that they have always felt included and equal based simply on the soul fact of membership. Whether or not we as saints have called them equal, they were not allowed to wield the title of God's Power (THE EXACT DEFINITION OF PRIESTHOOD) until 1978 in the eyes of the Church leadership.

That is exactly what racial inequality is. There is no skirting this definition.

It is more of a mindset than an action. I don't think that ever existed in Mormonism.

Yet I have shown you proof where they HAVE had a racist mindset; McKay had a problem with black-skinned students at BYU, and would have blamed Ernest Wilkinson if his daughter ever married a black dude. People within our own First Presidency and Apostolic 12 have shown a corrupt mindset during the 20th Century.

But by the looser definition of racism - which is simply discrimination - Mormonism can easily be understood by modern standards as racism. But then again, it can be applied to God too. After all, he initially chose the Jews as his people. The OT God by modern standards was a racist.

I think that OT exclusivity should not be an excuse to spread racist notions. Since it seems that this is the core of your argument (a healthy and fair statement, right?) let us please discuss in detail why exactly God would go out of his way to make sure that Levites were the only ones who deserved the priesthood at the time.

[katherine the great]

Jared Diamond (1999 winner of the Medal of Science award and UCLA evolutionary biologist) points out flaws in these theories:

Thank you for bringing up Jared Diamond. I've read a couple of his books and I LOVE this guy! He has a fantastic mind and has global views.

He favors sexual selection and random mutation as the reasons our skin colors vary. He doesn't completely dismiss environmental adaptation's effect on skin color, he just feels that these other (scientifically valid) factors explain it better. I agree with him that sexual selection is definitely a factor, but I believe environmental adaptation is the driving force. I haven't read anything of his that advances the hypothesis of skin color being a curse though...

[USU78]

Jared Diamond (1999 winner of the Medal of Science award and UCLA evolutionary biologist) points out flaws in these theories:

Thank you for bringing up Jared Diamond. I've read a couple of his books and I LOVE this guy! He has a fantastic mind and has global views.

He favors sexual selection and random mutation as the reasons our skin colors vary. He doesn't completely dismiss environmental adaptation's effect on skin color, he just feels that these other (scientifically valid) factors explain it better. I agree with him that sexual selection is definitely a factor, but I believe environmental adaptation is the driving force. I haven't read anything of his that advances the hypothesis of skin color being a curse though...

KG: looks like you and I are not that different in our understandings after all.

My apologies that a prior quibble became more than that.

R

[katherine the great]

My apologies that a prior quibble became more than that.

R

Not much of a quibble! You prefer anthropology to trace human history, I prefer biology. It's all good! I guess the fact is that superficial human differences really can't be "proven" either way. We piece together other things that can be proven to explain why we differ so much physically.

[Guest KW Graham]

Koak,

== So, wait, let me get this straight-there's some sort of conspiracy on behalf of a good chunk of the scientific community for the sole purpose of----raising black people's self esteem? Come on, you don't really believe this do you?

No. I'm saying that once a hypothesis is presented, such as the one that says all humankind came from a single black race, scientists who disagree with it are less likely to speak up for fears of being labelled a bigot, racist, and who knows, probably an anti-feminist. Just look what took place on this very forum. I disagreed with it because no compelling evidence was presented, and I was, almost instantly, psychoanalyzed as a closet-racist.

== I think most people are arguing with you mainly because you are arguing(I don't know if you are simply debating or believe it either) that it's just as plausible to subscribe to the notion that the mark of Cain was black. That scripturally one can argue why people are black today.

Some people are arguing with me because they desperately want to revamp what Mormonism is, and they do so for their own purposes. Which is fine, if they'd just admit it and stop pretending the Church threw out the baby with the bathwater in 1978. The ban was lifted, but this doesn't mean the Church admitted having screwed up in its teachings for the previous 140 years. It simply said God wanted the ban lifted. It never said the ban was unjust to begin with. This appears to be the fantasy of Katherine and other LDS where who are arguing against me.

== But that's not a scriptural understanding-it's a traditional understanding that predates Mormonism. I gave you a post earlier back that shows how hard it is to use a scriptural argument to explain the black race.

But Mormonism never has, nor will it ever be, based strictly on scripture. That is what makes it so different from the rest of the Churches. It claims prophetic authority. Teachings from the prophets are generally revelations from God. That is what makes them so important, and that is the main reason why we tell prospective converts they need to join Mormonism. Because we have an inspired voice from a bonafide prophet of God, unlike any other Church. Because we don't need to look at a 3000 year old text to help us with contemporary issues. We have a prphet for that. The negro-priesthood issue isn't something that can get swept under the carpet like Adam-God. It is grounded in Church teaching for more than a century. Some LDS happen to be under the delusion that in 1978, the Church somehow apologized and said it screwed up in its doctrine. This never took place.

The problem on this forum is that nobody is willing to test the plausibility of the so-called "scientific explanation" presented by Katherine and Moksha. I'm trying to test it on its merits. I listen to the scientists who propose it as well as the scientists who criticize it and from this I deduce the most compelling case. In the end, what I said remains true. That humans originated as blacks, and that skin color is a result of environmental adaptation, is far from proved.

Further, Katherine and a few others are too fixated on counter-racism and for thsi they keep bringing up the "curse" of Cain as if it were the only other alternative. So then it all boils down to a religious vs. scientific claim. I personally don't believe in the "curse" doctrine. I just said it is more logical than Katherine's PC theory of adaptation. And so long as you accept certain religious beliefs, the LDS claim is perfectly logical. Despite the smoke and mirror job here, science has provided nothing to disprove the Cain/mark/curse story. Nothing.

There are also many questions here that keep getting tossed about and confused, but these are the two I'm interested in:

1) How did humanity become multi-racial? Katherin insisted it was envrionmental adaptation - for which there is no proof, just unprovable hypotheses.

2) Were humans originally black? Katherine thinks, "Modern humans originated in Africa. That is a fact." But she hasn't even scraped the surface when challenged to prove it.

Scientists will admit that when everything is said and done, they really don't know. Only the few arrogant scientists, usually those who originated specific theories, insist they know "for a fact." Thus, it is highly disingenous for people like Katherine to sit there pretending to have the market cornered on the one and only "scientific explanation."

== I don't think we need to over politicize this either, making this into racism vs. reverse racism.

Good point. But I didn't bring it up. I was defending myself from the accusation of racism. Always, when discussing skin color, expect the race-baiters to be the first to bring up racism.

Katherine pontificates,

== Boy you are really out there! Adaptation takes place over thousands of years.

You don't say!

== It's influenced by many variables.

No, way! Really?

Do you really think you're telling me something we don't already know?

== I was assuming that you had a basic knowledge of environment and biology when I posted. Skin color can adapt by becoming darker or lighter, but it takes place over many, many generations.

And as Diamond and others have said, it is an "imperfect" hypothesis that has not been proved. The reason it is difficult to take you serious is that you present these things as if they are simply "facts." Then you turn around and claim to have respect for scientists like Diamond who disagree with what you just said.

== It's fruitless to argue with you on this because you don't know the basics of human evolution and adaptation.

I know more than you're willing to admit. That I disagree with you and can actually back up my reasons for doing so with actual references, seems to be the bane of your presentation.

== You comments make me think that you think it's all some vast conspiracy to disprove the religious belief that dark skin is a curse.

Straw man alert. What is supposed to be a conspiracy? I never once said such a thing.

== Oh, and by the way, there actually is at least one scientist who believes that the original skin color was white. Guess what? All hell didn't break loose.

They probably did an excellent job keeping it within the scholarly circles. Afro-centrists also insisted Jesus was black. And even though this was easily debatable, nobody wanted to debate it. Why? Because to argue that anyone was white and not black, is to be a racist. You can't disagree with anyone in this day and age unless they are the same color, religion and sex. Not without risking the bigot label anyway.

== No one cares because the point isn't our original color.

Oh really? Then why is it that PBS broke out with a special presentation on how humans were originally black, when it caught wind of what was being passed around? And where is the evidence that mankind was originally black? They dug up some bones in Africa that date further back than any other remains. Africa is typically inhabitaed by blacks today. So they connect the dots and then jump to the wild conclusion that 1) mankind began in Africa and 2) that race "hundreds ofthousands of years ago" was black! If you truly read Diamond then you know he is highly skeptical of such ssertions because we really don't know where these peoples lived in what parts of teh world and at what time in history. All we have, he said, is a "snapshop" on a tremendously long timeline. Only the foolish will jump to conclusions and insist they have all the answers.

== The point is that our skin color is the result of environmental adaptation and sexual selection.

So now that I've presented Diamond - who thwarts much of what you've been saying up to this point - you now want to adopt a hybrid view that incorporates both sides. How convenient. Well, that's one way to make sure you're never proved wrong. Keep changing your position.

== She believes that our skin color was like our Chimpanzee cousins and that as we moved out into the open sunlight and started migrating, all different skin colors came about. This happened over a period of more than a hundred thousand years. The modern people with the oldest dna are the San bushmen. Their skin is dark brown. There are people with lighter and darker skin than them. It's not related to worthiness, but to what suits their environment the best (or sometimes sexual selection.)

I'll let that speak for itself. Just more fantasy hypotheses about what took place over "hundreds of thousands of years." Why not make it a million years while we're shooting in the dark? It is easy to make wild jabs of what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened in this/that circumstance, when it is impossible to prove it.

Gravy,

== Are you so sure of this? Then why do you have a belief that the priesthood ban was policy, and not inspired doctrine?

Mormonism has always big a big promoter of the "blessings" of Israel. Everyone in the Church finds out which "tribe" he or she came from and they keep in on paper in the form of their patriarchal blessing. Every Stake has a patriarch, whose job is to provide members with their lineage. He does so by placing his hands on their heads and while "in the spirit" tells them about their tribe. They are then given a list of blessings that were set aside for them. The issue of priesthood and blacks had more to do with a lack of blessings than a "curse", in my opinion. It is entirely anti-PC in today's society, but God, according to scripture, has always worked this way. God has always shown partiality to some groups while giving others privileges and others blessings. Again, priesthood restriction was initially applied to all non-Levites.

== Yet I have shown you proof where they HAVE had a racist mindset; McKay had a problem with black-skinned students at BYU

I've never disputed any of this have I? There are racists in Mormonism to be sure, even authorities. BYU is in many ways "intolerant" even today. You can't attend the school if you smoke or drink. You can't (or at least couldn't 15 years ago) attend the BYU if you hve a beard (as did, ironically enough, Brigham Young!)

[AKS]

I wish we would stop debating the color of ancient man. It's a red herring. The important question is did God ever decree the black man not to hold the preiesthood?

Graham argues (very unconvincingly) that He did. I think not. Seems to me the ban was a product of 19th century mans perceptions. Nothing else. Many people (even some LDS) agree with me. Once this point is conceded, the more important question (to me anyway) becomes what are the implications of such a bogus policy.

[USU78]

My apologies that a prior quibble became more than that.

R

Not much of a quibble! You prefer anthropology to trace human history, I prefer biology. It's all good! I guess the fact is that superficial human differences really can't be "proven" either way. We piece together other things that can be proven to explain why we differ so much physically.

"Piece together" is, alas, all we'll probably ever be able to do, short of time machines.

Stuff out of the ground can only tell us so much. Genetics likewise can only tell us a fraction of the tale. Even recorded, first-hand accounts of events we must, unfortunately, meet with scepticism.

Will we ever get to the point where we know for certain the causes for the imposition and continuation of the priesthood ban to 1978? Who knows? I don't expect anything to come that sets our minds at rest. Maybe the response expected of us is no more complicated than GBH's words to Larry King: "It's behind us. Let's move on." We see so little that hasn't been obscured by the proverbial glass.

I'm just left with my disappointment at some Saints' uncharitable acts pre '78, some of which I observed (a Black Brasilian exchange student refused access to a stake youth dance in 1970, for example, until my obnoxiousness led to reexamination by probably fine folks who hadn't really thought it through), my own weaknesses and mistakes, and, on the other hand, the opportunism of acquisitive extremists who sought (and yet seek) means to do the Church harm through exploitation of a convenient pretext.

[koakaipo]

1)No. I'm saying that once a hypothesis is presented, such as the one that says all humankind came from a single black race, scientists who disagree with it are less likely to speak up for fears of being labelled a bigot, racist, and who knows, probably an anti-feminist. Just look what took place on this very forum. I disagreed with it because no compelling evidence was presented, and I was, almost instantly, psychoanalyzed as a closet-racist.

2)Some people are arguing with me because they desperately want to revamp what Mormonism is, and they do so for their own purposes. Which is fine, if they'd just admit it and stop pretending the Church threw out the baby with the bathwater in 1978. The ban was lifted, but this doesn't mean the Church admitted having screwed up in its teachings for the previous 140 years. It simply said God wanted the ban lifted. It never said the ban was unjust to begin with. This appears to be the fantasy of Katherine and other LDS where who are arguing against me.

3)But Mormonism never has, nor will it ever be, based strictly on scripture. That is what makes it so different from the rest of the Churches. It claims prophetic authority.  Teachings from the prophets should  be considered automatic revelations from God. That is what makes them so important, and that is the main reason why we tell prospective converts they need to join Mormonism. Because we have an inspired voice from a bonafide prophet of God, unlike any other Church. Because we don't need to look at a 3000 year old text to help us with contemporary issues. We have a prphet for that. The negro-priesthood issue isn't something that can get swept under the carpet like Adam-God. It is grounded in Church teaching for more than a century. Some LDS happen to be under the delusion that in 1978, the Church somehow apologized and said it screwed up in its doctrine. This never took place.

The problem on this forum is that nobody is willing to test the plausibility of the so-called "scientific explanation" presented by Katherine and Moksha. I'm trying to test it on its merits. I listen to the scientists who propose it as well as the scientists who criticize it and from this I deduce the most compelling case. In the end, what I said remains true. That humans originated as blacks, and that skin color is a result of environmental adaptation, is far from proved.

Further, Katherine and a few others are too fixated on counter-racism and for thsi they keep bringing up the "curse" of Cain as if it were the only other alternative. So then it all boils down to a religious vs. scientific claim. I personally don't believe in the "curse" doctrine. I just said it is more logical than Katherine's PC theory of adaptation. And so long as you accept certain religious beliefs, the LDS claim is perfectly logical. Despite the smoke and mirror job here, science has provided nothing to disprove the Cain/mark/curse story. Nothing.

There are also many questions here that keep getting tossed about and confused, but these are the two I'm interested in:

1) How did humanity become multi-racial? Katherin insisted it was envrionmental adaptation - for which there is no proof, just unprovable hypotheses.

2) Were humans originally black? Katherine thinks, "Modern humans originated in Africa. That is a fact." But she hasn't even scraped the surface when challenged to prove it.

Scientists will admit that when everything is said and done, they really don't know. Only the few arrogant scientists, usually those who originated specific theories, insist they know "for a fact." Thus, it is highly disingenous for people like Katherine to sit there pretending to have the market cornered on the one and only "scientific explanation."

4)Good point. But I didn't bring it up. I was defending myself from the accusation of racism. Always, when discussing skin color, expect the race-baiters to be the first to bring up racism.

1) See, I don't necessarily think that. I think on the masses level, there is this pressure, simply because when arguments are presented, they are presented in blurbs and fast food understandings. Black and white. Within in the scientific community, though, there's much more nuance as to what is being asserted and considered. Like you see a news blurb, it blares "carrots kill cancer!" And yet, when you read the actual studies, nothing is being asserted in the least. It's more nuanced and less definitive. So, I don't think that the science community would be so scared of dissension. Just my take.

2) Here's my take, and I don't think I"m revamping MOrmonism personally as I am probably along the lines of others you are referring to. My take is that the ban was lifted because traditional notions were reconsidered. The revelation and inspiration to lift the ban didn't come out of a vacuum. THere are definite historical markers that anticipate and foreshadow the ultimate lifting of the ban, including narrowing the ban by lifting it off certain ethnic groups such as Fijians. Yes, the revelation simply said the ban is lifted.

The official line is that "we don't know" why the ban was ever instilled. But it doesn't go into what we DO know and that's where documented history comes in. If we have President O'McKay documented as trying to lift the ban administratively with no revelation, administratively lifting the ban off of different groups without revelation, attempting to seek consensus on an administratively lifting, that DOES say something. That's not fantasy, and I think that's where you and I may find a divide-I don't think revelation popped out of a vacuum on it's own, an act of complete mystical prompting. Reconsiderations were made, and they were made at a time when America was reconsidering racial notions, as well as when the church began to internationalize and bump into people who didn't fall into "black" or "white" cateogories. Two big whammies in terms of reconsiderations.

3)No, Mormonism hasn't always been strictly based on scripture. It does claim prophetic authority. But I disagree that teachings from the prophets are generally revelations from God. Our own scripture and prophets disagree with this notion. Brigham Young himself, the most comfortable with making revelations!, clarified that in order for his sermons to be considered revelation, in addition to the "thus saith the Lord" utterance, he would have to look over the sermon to correct it. Almost all of the discourses in the Journal of Discourses are NOT corrected by Brigham Young.

Look at our D&C-again and again, we are taught of the fallibility of prophets. Joseph Smith gets tongue lashings for his misjudgements! Look at D&C10:37 where the Lord yet again points to the limited human abilities of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter."

That's saying something when God by revelation tells Joseph Smith how limited his gift of revelation is actually! So, no, I disagree that teachings are basically equal to revelation, and our own canon attests to this.

3A) Which leads me to traditional notions of Cain. Yes, this is a consistent understanding for a good stretch-even Joseph Smith mentioned in passing once that blacks were of Cain's lineage. Not a big discovery, this was considered common understanding for the day. BUT what about how that traditional notion was interpreted VERY differently by different prophets? Who do you go with? Cause Joseph Smith's interpretation that no curse or lineage could stop a man from rising to his full potential goes VERY much against Brigham Young's interpretation that blacks should be kept in their place due to their lineage and curses. And the former allowed blacks into the priesthood, allowed them into the Kirkland and Navoo temples, while the latter didn't. Which traditional notion do you go with? If they are both traditional, why would my stance be any less legitimate than th other stance?

4) I didn't get the notion that you were being racist. I do think that your points, although made almost rhetorically though in my eyes, can be seen as inflammatory as they speak to notions that aren't asserted anymore in our church. I think that's why you are getting the reaction you are. Just my take.

[katherine the great]

Only the foolish will jump to conclusions and insist they have all the answers.

== The point is that our skin color is the result of environmental adaptation and sexual selection.

So now that I've presented Diamond - who thwarts much of what you've been saying up to this point - you now want to adopt a hybrid view that incorporates both sides. How convenient. Well, that's one way to make sure you're never proved wrong. Keep changing your position.

I haven't changed my position. I've posted the importance of sexual selection in other threads on this board regarding human evolution. I didn't suddenly change to a "hybrid view" at your suggestion. I was following the course of the thread.

You seem like a very angry person.

[Guest KW Graham]

== Graham argues (very unconvincingly) that He did. I think not.

No, you're missing the point. I have no intentions of arguing such a thing- it would require that everyone hold to religious LDS presuppositions such as the acceptance of modern-day revelation. I'm simply arguing that this is true according to Mormonism. Katherine and other LDS like to believe otherwise by recreating the religion in an image of a multicultural tolerance that has swept across America the past 50 years. It is what every religious organization is pretending to be. I saw one Black Mormon website yesterday that said on its frontpage, "Forget the folklore, follow Jesus' teachings."

Well, if that isn't a perfect slogan for every single anti-Mormon website online! That is precisely what Evangelicals have been saying to Mormons all along. Follow Jesus alone and drop the sayings of your prophets!

These LDS want to retain the LDS as a culture, but conform the religion to their own liking. They try to dissect an LDS teaching they don't like at the expense of rendering the prophets meaningless. Apparently in this view, prophets serve as little more than the semi-annual inspirational spokesperson, but whose anti-PC views are to be rendered as mere opinion, possibly nonsense.

== Seems to me the ban was a product of 19th century mans perceptions. Nothing else.

I tend to agree with this too.

== Once this point is conceded, the more important question (to me anyway) becomes what are the implications of such a bogus policy.

This is why I was saying there are too many issues being tossed about here. You thought I'm arguing about the ban when I wasn't even talking about that. I was refering specifically to Katherine's claim that humankind originated in Africa and that it was a black race. I'm content to say we don't really know. She isn't. She knows "for a fact" she says. After all, it says so on e.wikibooks.org.

[GravyBoat]

Koak,

== So, wait, let me get this straight-there's some sort of conspiracy on behalf of a good chunk of the scientific community for the sole purpose of----raising black people's self esteem? Come on, you don't really believe this do you?

No. I'm saying that once a hypothesis is presented, such as the one that says all humankind came from a single black race, scientists who disagree with it are less likely to speak up for fears of being labelled a bigot, racist, and who knows, probably an anti-feminist. Just look what took place on this very forum. I disagreed with it because no compelling evidence was presented, and I was, almost instantly, psychoanalyzed as a closet-racist.

Psychoanalysis is an important part of debate, no matter how one cuts it. We're all trying to understand one's opinions, whether someone tells us or doesn't tell us specifically. There are certainly better ways to get to know someone beyond sharp assumptions (the painful part of psychoanalysis), but analyzing where someone's coming from is the essence of communication. And whether I'm full of BS on psychoanalysis doesn't matter to me, since I'm willing to have someone get to know where I'm coming from and attempt to tell me that I'm out of my mind, regardless of whether that opinion is right.

Mormonism is, and they do so for their own purposes. Which is fine, if they'd just admit it and stop pretending the Church threw out the baby with the bathwater in 1978. The ban was lifted, but this doesn't mean the Church admitted having screwed up in its teachings for the previous 140 years. It simply said God wanted the ban lifted. It never said the ban was unjust to begin with. This appears to be the fantasy of Katherine and other LDS where who are arguing against me.

I'm asking for more than just a statement that "God wanted the ban lifted, end of story." I think this is Katherine's, Koakaipo's, and my argument. We want the brethren to say something more than simply that we're through. No one's going to take several punches to the face by a bully, and once the bully immediately stops his actions and walks away, [edit] let him go without a word.

I think it's fine and dandy that Hinckley wants to put this all behind him. Good for him. However, he needs to say something before expecting the rest of us to do so. We need an apology.

Furthermore, I don't look at the 1978 lifting to be a stark apology, but every fiber of my being wants it to be.

One last thing: I think it's prudent to know [edit] what the difference between policy and doctrine means to you.