John Stewart Mormonism And The Negro

[phaedrus ut]

It looked to me that Elder Holland spoke against the valiant stuff in the above quote. That is the problem that I find in these discussions...no matter what is said it is never enough. It just might be true that they don't know the reason for the ban. In fact, I don't know anyone who does...do you? It can't even be traced back to specific statement or proclamation. Sometimes when you really don't know...honesty is the best policy.

I know at least one scholar who makes sure the church knows when she finds statements in books and such so they can get rid of them. I suggest everyone complain about the Doctrines of Salvation book so that such statements can be removed if they are going to champion it as something to have in our libraries.

I'm not sure if your suggestion to remove the book is sincere or tongue in cheek. But for the sake of discussion I'll assume it's a genuine suggestion. The problem with that comes with such a request is that the words of Joseph F. Smith aren't wrong or right. As you said when asked about the reason for the ban the party line has been "We don't know".

What Holland quote are you referring too?

Phaedrus

[juliann]

I'm quite serious about letting the church know when you find these things. Obviously they don't have a committee going through everything. It is one thing to have it there as a historical matter but quite another if it is being billed as something acceptable for today. I also wish the church would make some more specific statements...but it doesn't seem likely because they will get it either way and why should they risk looking like they are badmouthing past presidents when it won't please the howlers anyway? The ironic thing about this is that when the church did get going they were in a perfect situation...we didn't have segregated congregations, we can't avoid a church if the right color isn't there and the entire thing was accomplished overnight. Not one other religion has those advantages. I think that may be why the race baiters work so hard to stir up muck. If we judged everyone by their situation today the LDS church is in an enviable position. The religions who split will never get their congregations back together again.

Holland spoke specifically about the valiant thing in his PBS interview for The Mormons....somebody linked to it above.

[tcandew]

If all you can do is call a lot of posters dishonest you don't have anything to say we want to hear. Delete! ~ Mods

[kamenraider]

The meaning of these passages seems pretty clear to me:

JST Genesis 9:30 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him that he shall be known among all men.

Moses 7

6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents.

7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

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.

...

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1

20 Behold, Potipharâ??s Hill was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea. And the Lord broke down the altar of Elkenah, and of the gods of the land, and utterly destroyed them, and smote the priest that he died; and there was great mourning in Chaldea, and also in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood.

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;

[juliann]

The meaning of these passages seems pretty clear to me:

Well then explain them to the rest of us.

[kamenraider]

Well then explain them to the rest of us.

If you read them (paying particular attention to the text in bold) I think you'll notice that:

a. the seed of Cain & Ham were cursed

b. they were black

c. they were denied the priesthood

d. they were separate from the other people

Also mods, when tcandew said regarding one of my above posts (#64), "FINALLY, someone who's willing to stand up and be honest!" I think that he meant honest in the sense of being forthright in expaining my views, rather than honest in the sense of not posting falsehoods. It's kind of funny to me that a compliment paid to me would be seen as an insult to other posters.

I also wanted to say that just because there were probably negroid people living in Africa from before Adam all the way until Ham and Canaan it doesn't mean that Ham's black children could not have found their way around Africa and intermarried with them like the children of Laman and Lemuel (who were likewise marked -- see Alma 3:7) presumably did with the "others" here in the Americas.

[furii]

We donâ??t know is not an acceptable answer for me.

It seems like it should be clear by now, by reading this thread and what has been said about the matter by prophets that while we can all speculate, the official answer is that we don't know. That's an issue to take up with God, not his servants.

I donâ??t exclude the possibility that the outside world will force the church to receive further revelations on different subjects as the issue of female priesthood and the acceptance of same-sex families. These pressures will come in many ways. Science will ultimately prove that same-sex relations are biologically determined and that we find many examples in the animal world of such behavior. In the society there will certainly be a dramatic shift in values in this area, in the same that the segregation question changed American in the sixties and hereby paving the way for a revelation. It may be the other way around of course. It will however be very interesting to follow the development in these areas.

It's a pretty bold statement to say that science will "ultimately prove" same sex relations are biologically determined (which shouldn't've been brought up on this thread but made into a separate one). It's an even bolder one to presume the world can "force" the church to receive revelation. If you mean that questions in the world might prompt the leaders of the church to enquire of the Lord, that would make sense. But God isn't bullied into meeting man's demands. It was brought up on the PBS special that the church will have to become more align with society's views (like with things such as homosexuality and women holding the priesthood) or risk becoming outdated and eventually obsolete, but quite the opposite is true. The gap between what the world teaches and what the church continues to hold to will only widen as we draw nearer to the Millennium.

[SquarePeg48]

Wouldn't it be funny if Joseph Fielding Smith, and all others who spoke in this way, got the theory right, but the application wrong? What if being Black, poor and oppressed were the real blessing, while being born rich and advantaged were the curse? Remember what Brigham Young feared most for the LDS people: riches. He said that this people could go through the most horrendous persecutions and come out with their faith enhanced, but that he feared that riches would turn them away from God. And how right he was! We see this happening all the time.

This life is NOT what matters, after all: what matters is where we get in the eternities. So wouldn't it make sense that the REAL curse would be to be born with those things that exert the strongest pull AWAY from the Gospel: riches and advantages?

This is all a theory of course. It's just that I could never reconcile "being blessed" with "being born rich and advantaged". The BoM constantly shows us how being born rich and advantaged is in fact a HUGE obstacle to accepting and living the Gospel. And my own life has confirmed to me this principle again and again: I was born poor, and as long as I was poor, I had no problem noticing every blessing God gave me, and being grateful for them. Then at one time I got a good job, and it got harder to devote as much time to God, and to notice His hand in my life, because all my material stuff was taking my attention away. So... *shrugs* I guess this whole business just never made any sense to me.

Thank you so much, Del Marche! I've read this thread and have been saddened by Tramper's slide into apostasy as demonstrated by her "no longer believing" that the scriptures represent God's word--suggesting that neither does the statements of prophets of this day represent God's word.

As a student of American slavery, with all its after effects, I would agree. The difficulties faced by American blacks in particular represent trials almost unbelievable. While the Martin-Willey companies and other stories of LDS persecution and trials are told among our people, and indeed are stories of tremendous hardship, the stories of what blacks faced for centuries as slaves are even more horrific, and it is amazing to me how many survived and thrived. It is not only LDS that have struggled with racism, that ugliness continues to be deeply and widely embedded in our society despite efforts to deny that reality. In truth, my perception is that of all people in the US today, the truly devout LDS are among the least racist. Many evidences of this institutionalized racism exist; the LDS church may have been 15 years later than the Civil Rights movement to give the priesthood to blacks, but what is that when current non-official policies in cities and governments across the nation continue to allow and encourage blatant racism? The notion that LDS people as a whole are racist is so far from reality, again, when compared to the widely seen extremes of racism in cities of America today.

[Del March]

We don't know is not an acceptable answer for me.

That's your problem and yours only. "We don't know", in and of itself, is a perfectly valid answer. Even scientists use it all the time! Do you tell them, too, that it's not an acceptable answer?

It is however difficult to escape the conclusion that the 1978 revelation were partly a result of the hard pressures on the church from the outside world

In a way, you're right: the Civil Rights movement made it even harder on those within the Church who WANTED all worthy men to receive the Priesthood, like President Kimball for example...

I don't exclude the possibility that the outside world will force the church to receive further revelations on different subjects as the issue of female priesthood and the acceptance of same-sex families.

President Kimball had to ASK the Lord to allow him to drop the Ban. I doubt any prophet is ever going to ASK for those things.

Science will ultimately prove that same-sex relations are biologically determined and that we find many examples in the animal world of such behavior.

Can you give just ONE example of a species in which same-sex RELATIONSHIPS take place? I'm not talking of homosexual SEX, but of actual enduring pairings going beyond the use of sex as stress reliever, societal bond, or any such romantic love-UNrelated goals? IOW: can you give me just ONE example of same-sex families in the animal kingdom?

And while you're at it: can you tell us why on Earth we should accept a behaviour "just because animals do it too"?? Should we also kill our young, rape our women, abandon our kids, practice cannibalism, and so on? Because you know, animals do that too!

[Tramper]

Especially to Juliann and Selek and all others.

No I am not an apostate. No I do not wish to hurt the church. I am only an honest seeker for the truth.

The less valiant doctrine as an explanation for the ban isn't just from some isolated quote from one or two church leaders. The justifications for the ban from the Mormon pulpit are very prolific and remarkably consistent over time. If God didn't agree with his prophets teachings why did they continue over generations? To ask such a question is not an example of anti-Mormonism. Rather it is a sincere question from a person who really wants to understand the faith that the person have belonged to for many years.

There's a big difference between popular speculation among lay members and official church position. When the president and prophet of the church stands at the pulpit and teaches the laws of God, that isn't pure speculation. Especially if the message is supported by the scriptures (=word of God).

Some members of this message board seems to make the mistake of dismissing the statements of 19th and 20th -century Mormon leaders as "their own opinion," "not official doctrineâ?, "not canonâ?, "products of their times," etc. Those same members often assert that the only "official doctrine" is the Standard Works and official statements of the First Presidency, and that if some leaders said something that didn't come from those sources, it isn't official doctrine and therefore not binding on the membership.

However, an official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the

handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes....."

Many members also observed the significance of this doctrine, see Berrettâ??s statement below.

"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world." (- William E. Berrett's "The Church and the Negroid People," pp. 16-17)

Since it's obvious from this official First Presidency statement that church leaders taught and believed that people are born as Negroes because of their behavior in the pre-existence, as well as being from the lineage of Cain, and that the "sign" of Cain's curse was the black skin, then the fact that Negroes are still being born in large numbers every day tells us that God, according to Mormon theology, has never lifted the "curse of Cain," despite having the priesthood ban rescinded. If the curse was black skin, why wasnâ??t the curse lifted after 1978? As a result of the revelation no black people would be born in this world anymore. Wouldnâ??t it be helpful with a clarification on this subject? To avoid difficult, but justified questions is not very impressive. If the â??practiceâ? didnâ??t depend on the behavior in the pre-existence why did it take place? Those faithful black members in the church were, according to modern LDS apologists, actively misled by the church leaders in the past. They felt ashamed for a behavior in the past that in fact never took place, or did it? One wonders in the end who is the less valiant today? Perhaps are the less valiant in the pre-existence designated to become LDS apologists here and now (Iâ??m only joking here, lighten up the situation with a little humour).

Mormon scripture of significance for this thread

2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3: 6, 3 Nephi 2:14-15, Moses 7:22, Abraham 1:21-24,27

Official LDS Church Publications which explains the ban

"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race, Negro, from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham--"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"--the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood--that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians--these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book."

- Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128

â??From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.â?

- Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, page 635

"We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. Some, however, will argue that a black skin is not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact, some have been so foolish as to believe and say that a black skin is a blessing, and that the negro is the finest type of a perfect man that exists on the earth; but to us such teachings are foolishness. We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race....every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun.â?

- The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157

â??For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark;...â?

- LDS Publication, The Millennial Star, vol. 14, page 418

"Is or is it not apparent from reason and analogy as drawn from a careful reading of the Scriptures, that God causes the saints, or people that fall away from his church to be cursed in time, with a black skin? Was or was not Cain, being marked, obliged to inherit the curse, he and his children, forever? And if so, as Ham, like other sons of God, might break the rule of God, by marrying out of the church, did or did he not, have a Canaanite wife, whereby some of the black seed was preserved through the flood, and his son, Canaan, after he laughed at his grandfather's nakedness, heired three curses: one from Cain for killing Abel; one from Ham for marrying a black wife, and one from Noah for ridiculing what God had respect for? Are or are not the Indians a sample of marking with blackness for rebellion against God's holy word and holy order? And can or can we not observe in the countenances of almost all nations, except the Gentile, a dark, sallow hue, which tells the sons of God, without a line of history, that they have fallen or changed from the original beauty and grace of father Adam?"

- LDS Messenger and Advocate (Mar 1835), Pg.82

"History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom."

- Times and Seasons, Vol.6, Pg.857

[Spiceman]

Hi Tramper, Iv'e read about 3 pages of the thread and think I have the gist of it. I've been a member of the church for around 32 years and in that time I've learned that the best course is to always follow the sweet impressions of the spirit. It is the spirit which testifies of truth, it is the spirit which gives birth to our testimonies and the spirit which strengthens us. There will be many things in life and in the gospel to which you will NEVER in this life get an answer. The apostle Paul said " we see through a glass now darkly" and Nephi who saw our day and spoke of it was told by Christ that in the last days in regards to mankind, that:

"they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

The Church is led by inspired men but nonetheless they sometimes get it wrong as Bruce R McConkie full well knows, his words have been quoted in here. They key is encapsulated in the greatest commandments to love God and Love others. I've learned to not sweat the small stuff and focus on the mission of the church to invite all to come unto Christ and be perfected in him. At the end of the day, we will not be saved by any doctrinal clarification or explanation of some mystery we will be saved by faith in Christ and obedience to his laws.

Where there is no doctrine you are entitled to speculate all you like, so don't sweat too much on what others in here tell you unless of course it is from official sources and accepted as doctrine. I don't concern myself too much with how long it took to extend the priesthood to every worthy male, but I'm glad it has been and glory in the goodness of it. The reasons of why it was withheld for so long really I may have been concerned with 30 years ago but it's seriously that long ago now that it matters not. What matters is that I continue to feel the love of God each day for me and my family and I continue to lead them and myself in righteousness.

Anyway, hope you get the answers you seek and that you are able to move forward..

Take Care

Spiceman

[kamenraider]

Well Tramper, as far as the pre-existence explanation is concerned, I guess we're supposed to conclude that a media interview by a single apostle trumps a couple of official First Presidency statements.

[koakaipo]

Well Tramper, as far as the pre-existence explanation is concerned, I guess we're supposed to conclude that a media interview by a single apostle trumps a couple of official First Presidency statements.

I"m coming into this late, but wouldn't the official take that we don't know actually trump previous First Presidency Statements that at one time actually asserted that we DO know?

Or do you see this retraction in and of itself, like some do, as a political move by the church?

[kamenraider]

I"m coming into this late, but wouldn't the official take that we don't know actually trump previous First Presidency Statements that at one time actually asserted that we DO know?

Or do you see this retraction in and of itself, like some do, as a political move by the church?

To me the uniform "We don't know" comments just mean that a consultant from the Church's public relations firm probably advised them that an answer like that would be a good way to deflect priesthood ban questions. I don't see such comments as retractions of former First Presidency statements because they are often qualified by remarks such as Elder Holland's in the PBS interview: "I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along,...".

[koakaipo]

So you think it was a politically correct move on behalf of the church leaders then? You don't think there could be any reconsiderations at all that are sincere since the last 25 y ears has brought about historical documentation that refutes alot of traditional assumptions made about the origins and maintenance of the ban?

[tcandew]

If all you can do is call a lot of posters dishonest you don't have anything to say we want to hear. Delete! ~ Mods

of course. I have never insulted anyone here, I have never called anyone dishonest , I have been insulted several times... yet I'm the only one with that gets the red letter mod threats.

If you don't like what I have to say or my opinions then just say it, but please don't accuse me of things that I have not done.

[juliann]

If you read them (paying particular attention to the text in bold) I think you'll notice that:

a. the seed of Cain & Ham were cursed

b. they were black

c. they were denied the priesthood

d. they were separate from the other people

Also mods, when tcandew said regarding one of my above posts (#64), "FINALLY, someone who's willing to stand up and be honest!" I think that he meant honest in the sense of being forthright in expaining my views, rather than honest in the sense of not posting falsehoods. It's kind of funny to me that a compliment paid to me would be seen as an insult to other posters.

I also wanted to say that just because there were probably negroid people living in Africa from before Adam all the way until Ham and Canaan it doesn't mean that Ham's black children could not have found their way around Africa and intermarried with them like the children of Laman and Lemuel (who were likewise marked -- see Alma 3:7) presumably did with the "others" here in the Americas.

So you have decided that Canaan is Cain because your insertion of race into this doesn't work if you don't. Now tell us how you came to that conclusion and use references please.

[juliann]

Well Tramper, as far as the pre-existence explanation is concerned, I guess we're supposed to conclude that a media interview by a single apostle trumps a couple of official First Presidency statements.

This is a textbook example of why nothing that is said will matter.

Tramper, I'm going to ask you one more time to give us references within the past decade if you are going to continue to apply your old quotes to current church thinking. I am sure everybody knows that there was past discrimination so why you have to keep spamming your old cut & paste stuff is rather odd. (And I couldn't care less if you are an "apostate" or a Stake Prez, so please stop attributing that concern to me).

[Calm]

One son of Ham is cursed, the others are not. Only one wife is referenced, often called Egyptus. Supposedly it's through her the curse of Cain continues.

But how can that be if it's only in the one son and not her other sons?

The curse of Canaan, the son of Ham, as described in the scriptures is different than the curse of Cain.

Why are they being confused?

[kamenraider]

So you have decided that Canaan is Cain because your insertion of race into this doesn't work if you don't. Now tell us how you came to that conclusion and use references please.

I've decided that Canaan is Ham, Noah's "younger son" (see Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible V. 3 pg. 555; New Jerusalem Bible, scholars edition, Genesis 9:25-27, footnote 'fâ??; Moffett's Translation of the Bible pgs. xxi, 9), and that his seed "preserved the curse in the land".

This is a textbook example of why nothing that is said will matter.

That statement wasn't meant to be taken so seriously -- that's why I put the winking smiley next to it.

[juliann]

Now tell us who the Canaanites are and trace the geneaology of Egyptus.

[kamenraider]

Now tell us who the Canaanites are and trace the geneaology of Egyptus.

Yes ma'am: the Canaanites are descendants of Ham, and Egyptus was Ham's daughter, and her genealogy may be traced through him.

In case you didn't notice, I mentioned above that I believe that Ham's seed "preserved the curse in the land". I believe (in the context of the flood) that this refers to the curse put upon Cain. You may take it to mean the curse put upon Canaan; if so, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now, how about if you take a turn and tell us your interpretation of each of the scriptures I posted earlier in this thread?

[juliann]

Yes ma'am: the Canaanites are descendants of Ham, and Egyptus was Ham's daughter, and her genealogy may be traced through him.

In case you didn't notice, I mentioned above that I believe that Ham's seed "preserved the curse in the land". I believe (in the context of the flood) that this refers to the curse put upon Cain. You may take it to mean the curse put upon Canaan; if so, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"I believe" is accurate. None of this can be strung together without a pre-existing theory which relies on skin color which was never there. Canaanites are a little too well known to be connected to a skin color. Nor can you make much headway with Egyptus.

There is much more to do with slavery than color. The servitude element was critical and this is how Ham was useful as the embodiment of dishonor then disorder and rebellion through his son. [stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York: Oxford Press, 2002), 9-10.] Skin color was not adequate to defend slavery...blacks had to present a need to be controlled because of these traits.

As for scripture, the Bible has several references to blackness...I haven't read anyone taking that literally, unless you think Job turned black...among others. So to make this a matter of pigment requires someone to come along and stick it in there. And this was done quite liberally. It just surprises me when people want to continue...even as they object to it.

[furii]

However, an official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the

handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes....."

All this tells me is that 1)everyone on earth maintained their first estate, and 2)spirits were willing to come to earth regardless of the kind of body they secured because they found the benefits outweighed the costs. Thus, those who knew they would never get a chance to hear the gospel because of their time and circumstance, those who knew they would be severely mentally retarded while on earth, those who knew they would have a degenerative disease giving them almost no mobility and constant pain their whole lives...all of them knew that they'd face these trials but knew that getting a body was worth all of them. This statement simply says that the blacks who were not given the priesthood understood they wouldn't be able to receive it but knew that being born in the time they were and the opportunity to be members of the church was more than worth it. This might actually be the weakest support you've given thus far.

The other quotations were not given authors, simply the magazine which they were in. If you gave the authors it might give them a little more weight and credibility. While all of those sources had church ties, they were still written by individual persons and not at word for word discretion by the church as official doctrine handed down from God or an official declaration.

[kamenraider]

"I believe" is accurate. None of this can be strung together without a pre-existing theory which relies on skin color which was never there. Canaanites are a little too well known to be connected to a skin color. Nor can you make much headway with Egyptus.

Yes, "I believe" is accurate when we're talking about religious doctrine and the meaning of certain scriptures. What pre-existing theory do you use to string together your beliefs about this? Have you adopted that of someone like Armand Mauss, or have you come up with one independently? That reminds me -- you have not yet accepted my invitation to give your interpretation of each of the scriptures that I posted earlier in the thread. You've been pretty vague about the details of how you see these issues -- you say my "theory" relies on "skin color which was never there". I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that. It's not very hard to sit back and doubt the assertions of another party in a discussion, and ask for proof and specific references while the other guy is sent scrambling to find them. It would be nice if you provided some references with some of the statements of fact (?) you make. I answered your question about the genealogy of Egyptus; was there something more that you were wanting me to say?

There is much more to do with slavery than color. The servitude element was critical and this is how Ham was useful as the embodiment of dishonor then disorder and rebellion through his son. [stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York: Oxford Press, 2002), 9-10.] Skin color was not adequate to defend slavery...blacks had to present a need to be controlled because of these traits.

I said earlier in this thread that the priesthood ban has nothing to do with slavery. Canaan was cursed with being a servant, which is not the same thing as a being a slave. Do I think Brigham Young in saying: "Now then, in the Kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of the priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it -- men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal, 'I Am what I Am, I take it off at My pleasure,' and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the Lord says He will have it taken away," got his cue from the theories that 19th century Christian purveyors of slaves used to justify their business? No, I don't.

As for scripture, the Bible has several references to blackness...I haven't read anyone taking that literally, unless you think Job turned black...among others. So to make this a matter of pigment requires someone to come along and stick it in there. And this was done quite liberally. It just surprises me when people want to continue...even as they object to it.

Job turned dark because he was sick. The word used meant "darkened". It was similar to the word for dawn or dusk, and is only translated as "black" in that one place in the Bible. We should give Joseph Smith's translations of scripture, which I quoted above, credit for being a little more inspired than those who translated the KJV book of Job. I'm sorry, but stuff like this being mentioned seems to me like grasping at straws -- like how evangelical Christians say that the Bible doesn't really mean that God has a body, because it also says that He has wings.

I don't understand the last sentence of your post: "It just surprises me when people want to continue...even as they object to it." Continue what? Defending supposedly obsolete interpretations of scripture? Object to what? Huh?

One last request -- what do you think about the meaning of this scripture:

Zechariah 14:21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

Want to take a crack at it?