John Stewart Mormonism And The Negro

[Kevin Christensen]

Kaimanraider:

You should read Hugh Nibley's Abraham in Egypt, which is conveniently available online at the FARMS website, particularly "Trouble with Ham" chapter. Along with various other things which Juliann and I have both mentioned, apparently to no effect. Nibley's reading is strikingly different than yours, and to my way of thinking, far more informed and much more persuasive. A sure way to misread any text is to presume that your social context maps to any other cultural context, whether modern or especially ancient. That is exactly Stewart's problem, and that is why the recent studies of the history of the interpretation and the creation of the social myths are important, and completely supercede his attempt.

For example, from the "Trouble with Ham" chapter:

These few observations, kept to a minimum, should be enough to make it clear that there is no exclusive equation between Ham and Pharaoh, or between Ham and the Egyptians, or between the Egyptians and the blacks, or between any of the above and any particular curse. What was denied was recognition of patriarchal right to the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession.

From the A Pioneer Mother Chapter:

In Abraham 1:21â??27 we certainly see something of that confusion that results from the mingling of patriarchal and matriarchal claims that left the pharaohs forever in doubt as to just where they stood on authority.

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 [the pawt], 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. 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 (Abraham 1:26â??27).

Question: Why could they not have it?

Answer: Because, as noted, it came through a matriarchal succession, the first pharaoh being "the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal" (Abraham 1:25). Pharaoh was of a more righteous line than the sons of Ham, but daughters do not transmit patriarchal succession. In all of this, please note, there is no word of race or color, though that has been the main point of attack on the Book of Abraham by the enemies of the Prophet.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[kamenraider]

Thanks Kevin, I'll see if I can find that book. There's a few of Nibley's books that I haven't read yet and that's one of them. If you can think of anything else that you have found to be helpful towards explaining these issues, then let me know.

[juliann]

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

Want to take a crack at it?

Am I correct in assuming that you are still trying to get to Canaanites through this verse? It appears to be an end days prophecy where the land is turned over to the temple of the Lord, even all pots being made holy and suitable for use in temple ritual (rather than only a priestly function). Canaanite is "trader" in my NRV and probably used here in the same sense as Babylon is used elsewhere as the "other". Bokovy would be the guy to ask on this one.

What remains is that Cain has no connection to Canaan, Canaanites were Semites not "blacks" and there is no discernible connection between the PoGP's descriptions and "blacks". Black is a word used in opposition to white as a metaphor in the Bible. It is accepted to the point that no one is even aware of how often it is used to describe people but still they go to great pains to insert racism when they read similar usage in the BOM...usage that we should expect to be there if the BOM is truly an ancient document. Ancient divisions were nationalistic not racial. The "other" was always bad, lazy, dark, dumb and depraved. One could not properly be demonized without a common set of descriptors.

Further, if we are to apply a curse to Ham, then Joseph married a cursed woman and Ephraim carries it so this becomes even more absurd. You might also consider that Mormons seemed to stick to the curse of Cain while conventional Christianity took off with Ham. My guess on this is that Mormons never had the issues with trying to separate blacks out from the human race that Christian slavers had. Despite our failings, Mormon leaders never denied that blacks were the children of God. (Also impressive was a consistently expressed visceral disgust about the abuses of slavery). Slavers needed to distance blacks from God and Cain was too close to being made in his image. Ham gave them enough distance that they could claim a different species had emerged. That is my own opinon. Armand has influenced me greatly but so have Gossett, Haynes, Raboteau, and about ten others I can't name off the top of my head. I do not have access to all of my books yet.

Mormons did not make this stuff up, they inheirited it. We put our own distinctive marks on the mess in an effort to explain it. We have a wonderful fall back position that scripture trumps and our scripture upholds us as we try to unravel this spider's web of ugly folklore. As our former leaders expressed disgust towards the abusers of slaves, I feel some of that disgust to those who still want to metaphorically keep slavery alive with the race baiting we see on these boards on a regular basis. Where there is no attempt to understand, build bridges and heal rifts there can only be a desire to destroy at the expense of blacks who always seem to be a handy weapon. Some things never end.

[kamenraider]

I ought to explain that I'm not 100% certain how to interpret Zechariah 14:21. If it means those who trade (which could only be determined through interpretation, as the word there is the same one that is used to refer to Canaanites as an ethnic group), then what are we to conclude? That we won't be paying to rent temple clothes or eat at a temple cafeteria anymore? Does it apply only to the temple in Jerusalem? If so, would it not fail to recognize all of the LDS temples around the world as being houses of the Lord? If it means though, that the seed of Canaan will not be allowed in the temple then, I think that would demonstrate that such determinations are up to the Lord exclusively, rather than being due to changing social values causing us to reasess the value of certain doctrines, weary the Lord with our pleadings until He removes them, and then reinterpret them as being uninspired and obsolete.

I see a connection between the curse put on Cain, and Ham in Abraham 1:24 as I've already noted:

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.

I understand the mention of a curse to refer to the curse put on Cain, because this verse, speaking of the settling of Egypt after the flood, says that the curse was preserved in the land through Ham and his seed. What do we understand the mention of the curse being preserved to mean, if not to mean that it was preserved through the flood?

I've heretofore avoided mentioning statements by Church leaders (other than the First Presidency) because I thought it would be pointless, but here's a few that I thought to be significant anyway (I omitted Coltrin's and Smoot's recalled accounts of Joseph Smith's statements to avoid unnecessary controversy):

In the Messenger and Advocate, William W. Phelps, in March of 1835, connected the curse of Cain and that of Ham with black people. That paper was edited by Oliver Cowdery and no doubt also read by Joseph Smith (see Messenger and Advocate, Mar. 1835 "Letter No. 5," p.82).

"Tuesday, 25.--...In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain."

--Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol.4, p.501.

I guess that the revelation that Elder Snow mentions here is lost to us now:

"Abraham came through Shem, and the Savior came through this lineage; and through this blessing of Noah upon Shem, the Priesthood continued through his seed; while the offspring of Ham inherited a curse, and it was because, as a revelation teaches, some of the blood of Cain became mingled with that of Ham's family, and hence they inherited that curse."

--Erastus Snow, August 8, 1880, Journal of Discourses, Vol.21, p.370.

"It is given to us that the descendants of Shem and Japheth, sons of Noah, if they receive the gospel, are entitled to the priesthood. Only the sons of Cain are not entitled to the priesthood, and you can read why in the Pearl of Great Price. So all the descendants of Shem and Japheth, as they accept of the gospel of Jesus Christ are entitled to the blessings of Israel, because that was the promise given to Abraham, that through him all the families of the earth should be blessed."

--Eldred G. Smith, Conference Report, April 1952, p.39.

Further, if we are to apply a curse to Ham, then Joseph married a cursed woman and Ephraim carries it so this becomes even more absurd.

Noah said that that lineage was cursed pertaining to the priesthood (see Abraham 1:26). If Asenath were of that cursed lineage, then so was Joseph Smith (who was a descendant of Joseph and Asenath) and thus he could not have held the priesthood, as we know he did.

Slavers needed to distance blacks from God and Cain was too close to being made in his image.

They could've made use of sources like Rabbi Hiyya, who in the Zohar l:37a, says that Cain's literal father was Samael, the devil; so does Yalkut Schim, and also Rabbi Eliezer in Pirqei de R. Eliezer, 21: "The serpent came in to her [Eve] and she became pregnant with Cain..."; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (a.k.a. Targum Yerushalmi), Genesis 4:1 says: "...she [Eve] had conceived by Samael... and gave birth to Cain."; also the Babylonian Talmud, in Shabbath 146a, Yebamoth 103b and Aboda Zara 22b makes reference to how "the serpent copulated with Eve." Early Christians apparently had heard of this also, for Tertullian, the so-called father of Latin theology, wrote in On Patience 5:15 as follows: "Having been made pregnant by the seed of the devil...she [Eve] brought forth a son."

Mormons did not make this stuff up, they inheirited it.

Yes, from the ancient patriarchs who knew about it firsthand.

A comment regarding one of the Hugh Nibley quotes that Kevin posted above:

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 [the pawt], 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. 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 (Abraham 1:26â??27).

Question: Why could they not have it?

Answer: Because, as noted, it came through a matriarchal succession, the first pharaoh being "the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal" (Abraham 1:25). Pharaoh was of a more righteous line than the sons of Ham, but daughters do not transmit patriarchal succession. In all of this, please note, there is no word of race or color, though that has been the main point of attack on the Book of Abraham by the enemies of the Prophet.

Since, as Bro. Nibley well knew, and ought to have remembered, the Melchizedek Priesthood is received "without father, without mother, without descent" (Hebrews 7:3), it wouldn't make any difference whether the first pharaoh was a son of Egyptus. Patriarchal government is another matter, and Nibley seems to have confused it with priesthood. Just because someone didn't receive the birthright doesn't mean they couldn't have received the priesthood, even though those who ruled did so by virtue of the priesthood as well as the birthright.

[Calm]

There is a difference between recovering costs (including the labour of those who prepare things) and charging money to make a profit.

I think that is an essential difference between monetary costs that are charged today in the temples and what the templechangers that Christ chased out were doing.

[Tramper]

After all the writing that has taken place on this subject I feel obliged to quote the outstanding historian D. Michael Quinn ((taken from "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904").

"We can ignore the past; we can even deny it; but we cannot escape its intrusion upon our faithful history. ... History is what we are able to discover of the past; historical fantasy is what we wish had occurred."

John J. Stewart has been by Selek misleadingly pointed out as an apostate fundamentalist. However he was a member in good standing in the LDS church. He even wrote a book with Joseph Fielding Smith Jr: "The life of Joseph Fielding Smith, Tenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Deseret Book Company, 1972.

[juliann]

I've heretofore avoided mentioning statements by Church leaders (other than the First Presidency) because I thought it would be pointless, but here's a few that I thought to be significant anyway (I omitted Coltrin's and Smoot's recalled accounts of Joseph Smith's statements to avoid unnecessary controversy):

Who are you arguing with? Has anyone denied this? And Nibley is "confused". That is an impressive comeback. Meanwhile, not one statement from current times...not one. This thread is for the purpose of spamming old quotes for what reason I cannot fathom. It obviously is greatly pleasurable, in what way I won't speculate. Have at it, enjoy, whatever.

[juliann]

John J. Stewart has been by Selek misleadingly pointed out as an apostate fundamentalist. However he was a member in good standing in the LDS church. He even wrote a book with Joseph Fielding Smith Jr: "The life of Joseph Fielding Smith, Tenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Deseret Book Company, 1972.

[kamenraider]

Who are you arguing with?

I wasn't arguing with a "who", but a "what" -- the notion that the Cain/Canaan connection and curses was a myth that only goes back as far as Brigham Young, and was unofficial in its origin and perpetuation.

Has anyone denied this?

Yes.

And Nibley is "confused". That is an impressive comeback.

I said that he "seems" to have confused the right of the firstborn with the right to receive the priesthood in the quote that Kevin posted, not that he is confused. That's an impressive comeback to my impressive comeback, BTW, -- almost as good as .

Meanwhile, not one statement from current times...not one.

According to LeGrand Richards, when the brethren of the First Presidency and the Twelve discussed the release of Official Declaration 2, they decided to not say anything in the future beyond what was in it regarding the history of the priesthood ban, or reasons for it.

This thread is for the purpose of spamming old quotes for what reason I cannot fathom. It obviously is greatly pleasurable, in what way I won't speculate. Have at it, enjoy, whatever.

It's certainly not a pleasure for me to argue against revising our history and doctrine due to guilt or embarassment. Perhaps you can't fathom why I might do so because you consider the doctrinal underpinning of the priesthood ban to be nothing more than racist folklore.

[Kevin Christensen]

As I said earlier on, no one should begin to even discuss this topic these days without considering these books, something that Stewart was in no position to do.

The 2003 book, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Jewish Studies scholar David Goldenberg explains that a belief that Cainâ??s â??markâ? was black skin is a relatively recent phenomenon."

Also Stephen Haynes, Noahâ??s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford University Press, 2002).

It is comparison with the information in these books that makes it obvious exactly where the LDS commentators got their approach to the P of GP texts that later were employed by LDS. So quoting LDS leaders as though their thinking on the topic was somehow authoritative and binding, when it was clearly socially conditioned, and based on interpretatations that do not go back to the ancient patriarchs. The patterns of thinking, in social conditioning, the same proof texts, the presuppositions, the idea that one can get by on a few proof texts without actually studing out "the things of the Jews", the supposition that if a word like "black" means something to me when I read it, that it meant the same thing in the culture that produced... all of these things are problems. If we really want to understand things, we have to get into the habit of contextualizing (which tends to remind us how little we really know) rather than prooftexting (which has the opposite effect).

Scripture and tradition tie Pharaoh's genealogy inseparably to Ham, and hence to the famous curse that "belongs to the red thread of history," as Wolfgang Richter puts it.135 Or, to follow the Book of Abraham, "Thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land" (Abraham 1:24). Which was cursed, the land or the people? "It can only be the land that it meant," Richter concludes,136 for as F. M. Theodor B

[kamenraider]

As I said earlier on, no one should begin to even discuss this topic these days without considering these books, something that Stewart was in no position to do.

The 2003 book, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Jewish Studies scholar David Goldenberg explains that a belief that Cainâ??s â??markâ? was black skin is a relatively recent phenomenon."

Also Stephen Haynes, Noahâ??s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford University Press, 2002).

It is comparison with the information in these books that makes it obvious exactly where the LDS commentators got their approach to the P of GP texts that later were employed by LDS. So quoting LDS leaders as though their thinking on the topic was somehow authoritative and binding, when it was clearly socially conditioned, and based on interpretatations that do not go back to the ancient patriarchs. The patterns of thinking, in social conditioning, the same proof texts, the presuppositions, the idea that one can get by on a few proof texts without actually studing out "the things of the Jews", the supposition that if a word like "black" means something to me when I read it, that it meant the same thing in the culture that produced... all of these things are problems. If we really want to understand things, we have to get into the habit of contextualizing (which tends to remind us how little we really know) rather than prooftexting (which has the opposite effect).

And if we do really want to go back to a patriarch who knew something about all of this first hand, think about Joseph:

Also worth considering, for more information on the Melchizedek priesthood, Margaret Barker The Hidden Mystery of the Kingdom, which came out this year. See the chapter on the High Priesthood.

One of the things that happens when there are gaps in our knowledge is that speculation arises to fill the vacuum. Joseph Campbell explains that one of the purposes of a mythology is to support the current social order. It should not be surprising that the speculations that arise leave the finger print of the culture that provides them that is just as obvious as the anachronsitic revisualizations of Jerusalem in Medieval and Renaissance paintings. It's not a sin. People were doing the best they could with what they had. But where we have more, we should take advantage and do better.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, when I study LDS doctrine, I place priority on the scriptures and statements from Church leaders -- books by professors of biblical studies and ancient scripture don't have priority in my doctrinal studies.

Many of the academic "expanations" I've read of such things as why, say, "black" doesn't really mean "negroid" tend to just muddy the water and are quite speculative, when the most obvious meaning is more simple, clear and makes sense.

Does the latest Margaret Barker book (you cited the title incorrectly, BTW) contain something in it pertinent to this thread that you think I need to know about the Melchizedek priesthood? I can't afford to buy it and no libraries in my area have it, so please tell me what you're getting at if it's relevant to this discussion.

[Kevin Christensen]

After Jesus told the parable of the Sower, the disciples asked what it meant. In response, Jesus says, "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?" And then he explains about what happens to the fruitfulness of the seed (words) depending on the ground in which they are put.

Context matters. If the "obvious" meaning stays put when you try a range of different approaches and tools, fine. But if things change, if another approach starts trigging growth, and abandant fruit, then you may start to comprehend that it is a specific context that makes something seem obvious, and another context can sometimes change that in completely unforseen ways. Some things about Mark Hoffman seem obvious in retrospect. A few bombs and a bit of cracked ink completely changes the context for his productions. The obvious meaning of the text now takes a back seat to other contexts.

The Book of Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls provide contexts for the study of the New Testament that change much that was considered obvious for centuries.

Calling an approach like "Stirling" at the BCC link I entered this discussion with, or Armand Mauss's work on the ban from a sociological perspective "speculative" does not really define what is happening. And the ancients really did not think in ways that we think "obvious" about words like "black" and "white." There is a good example of that in Lamentations that several of us have cited in the past.

"Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:

Their visage is blacker than coal..." Lamentations, 4:7

By itself, such a passage should raise questions at least, and it happens that such passages do not stand by themselves, but have much else in the Ancient Near East that speaks in similar ways. (Nibley, in the Book of Mormon lectures, and Sorenson in Ancient American Setting, both refer to different aspects of this.)

One of the contexts that our scriptures places in front of us in the formal charter for LDS authority (D&C 1) is that the revelations were given to men in their weakness, after the manner of their language that they might come to understanding. We are told up front that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest, and inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed." I find it far beyond speculation D&C 1 accurately describes the situation.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[kamenraider]

Kevin,

I'm still kind of wondering what additional information on the Melchizedek priesthood is contained in The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God by Margaret Barker.

I agree that context matters, however I don't think it changes what is true. Thomas Stuart Ferguson claimed that he showed photographs of the Joseph Smith Papyri to Hugh B. Brown after their discovery and that President Brown agreed with him that the Book of Abraham was not scripture. If this is true, it might explain how President Brown was able to get the Twelve and President N. Eldon Tanner to agree to a proposal allowing blacks to be ordained to the priesthood (before Harold B. Lee persuaded them to change their mind) without any apparent reluctance or fear of contradicting the idea of priesthood restriction contained in the Book of Abraham. As for me, my testimony of the truth of the scriptures can't be altered by scientific discoveries, whether they are about Egyptian papyri or DNA studies, or whatever.

Kamen Raider

Disneyland, USA

[juliann]

It's certainly not a pleasure for me to argue against revising our history and doctrine due to guilt or embarassment. Perhaps you can't fathom why I might do so because you consider the doctrinal underpinning of the priesthood ban to be nothing more than racist folklore.

That is not an accurate representation of what I consider. And everyone should be "embarrassed" about the treatment of others in any number of past instances in all walks of life. Mankind has much to answer for. But that is not an excuse to accuse people who think differently than you do of revising history.

[ruski_canuk]

Well, the problem with your way of reasoning is that it doesn't fit Mormon theology. If we had free agency in the pre-existence, why shouldn't we be able to trace the blessings from our behavior in that existence in this life; in the same way we believe that our actions here will have a significance for us in the next existence?

Interesting thought.

[Kevin Christensen]

kaimenraider says;

I'm still kind of wondering what additional information on the Melchizedek priesthood is contained in The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God by Margaret Barker.

A taste:

Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, did describe Melchizedek as a high priest . He appears in Genesis 14, where Abraham rescues his nephew Lot. When he returns, the patriarch meets Melchizedek, priest of God Most High and King of Salem, who offers him bread and wine and blesses him. In Psalm 110 Melchizedek is the model for the royal priesthood, born as the divine Son in the glory of the holy ones. Both texts have been altered in transmission, and every word has been scrutinised and debated, such was the importance of Melchizedek. Nobody, however, could have guessed his real significance until a text about him was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls . Melchizedek is the clearest warning we have that to understand Christian origins and concepts such as the Kingdom of God, we have to look outside the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus was compared to Melchizedek as the great high priest (Heb.7.17), and then, because no genealogy appears in Genesis, he was said to have no father or mother and to have no normal earthly life span. He had become like the Son of God, a perpetual priest, an unbroken priesthood (Heb.7.3) in contrast with the sons of Aaron who all died and were replaced (Heb.7.23)

Melchizedek is written as two words, suggesting that it is not a name but a title: the righteous king. The righteous king is transformed by this enthronement, but the actual process is no longer clear. Reconstructing from the fractured Hebrew text and the Greek, the original may have been: â??In the glory of the holy ones I have begotten youâ??. Beyond recovery are references to a womb and the Dawn, to dew, or perhaps to a promise that the unknown person will not be cast down . The unreadable verse describes the heart of the temple cult: how the Son of God was born, how the human became divine, and this new status is described in terms of Melchizedek, the righteous king who triumphs over his enemies. The Messianic Rule from Qumran also describes the birth of the Messiah; â??When God begets the Messiahâ?¦â?? and the context shows that this person is a priest who presides at the meal of bread and wine . Psalm 110 is the most frequently used text in the New Testament , which may account for the unreadable state of the Hebrew. The biblical texts became something of a battle ground as the early church claimed fulfilment of prophecy. Melchizedek was an important figure because he was not Jewish and therefore proof that an uncircumcised priesthood had been honoured by Abraham . The Melchizedek texts suffered as a result.

And Melchizedek did have a genealogy. He was identified as Shem the son of Noah and so part of the Jewish family who survived the flood, but he lost the priesthood when he sinned. According to the story in Genesis, Melchizedek/Shem blessed Abraham before he blessed God, and thus he lost the priesthood to Abraham . Through Abraham it was but four generations to Aaron, and so the priestly line was secure and within Israel.

There is, however, a different genealogy and another account of Melchizedekâ??s priesthood in 2 Enoch . This must not be read as an idle tale, but as evidence of a counterclaim to the true priesthood. Enochâ??s son Methuselah was a priest, the story goes, and when he was about to die, the God of Enoch told him to consecrate his grandson Nir as the next priest. Nir was the younger brother of Noah, but not mentioned in Genesis. He lived a celibate life after his consecration as priest, and yet his wife conceived miraculously just before she died. A glorious son was born from her dead body, and he had the mark of priesthood on his chest. Noah and Nir dressed him as a priest, gave him holy bread to eat, and named him Melchizedek. He survived the great flood because Gabriel took him to Eden in heaven, and thus the great priesthood of Enoch survived the flood, that is, the exile, in the person of Melchizedek. This is the alternative account of how and where the priesthood of the first temple survived.

Incidentally, in Enoch the Prophet, Nibley compares the Pearl of Great Price account of Noah's birth to these other tales. The point is, there is more to know than is contained in the scriptures we have. The other sources can provide a context for the scriptures, and in many cases, such contexts change the meanings.

I agree that context matters, however I don't think it changes what is true.

My point is that context can reveal or conceal what is true. Context alters perception and comprehension. "To a mouse, cheese is chees: that is why mousetraps work." I've been through that experience many many times, and hope to experience such altered perceptions each time I pick up a book.

I've been a technical writer in the computer aided engineering field for more than 20 years. In engineering, hierarchy is a way of dealing with complexity. In scholarship and faith, hierarchy can also be a way of dealing with complexity. In engineering, an element of a hierarchy can be a box with a label on it. The important thing in engineering is what happens under the label, what happens inside the black box. The label is a convenience, not an action. In a Sunstone essay called "Wagging the Dog" a couple of years ago, I showed what happens if you go through Alma (for example) and observe the different ways that he accounts for the opinions he expresses. Some things came through revelation, some through inspiration, some through study, some through tradition, and some things speculative opinion, and some things he simply admitted he didn't know. I cheerfully consider Alma a real person who actually lived, and a real prophet. Even so, his own teachings make it abundantly clear that I should feel free to consider how it is that he comes to say what he says topic by topic, rather than supposing that every single utterance comes as the unalloyed word of God. The "prophet" label does not require me to consider that everything that passes through the individual so labeled is equally authoritative. That is a misuse of the label.

In reading Ferguson, for example, in a comparative context with various things from Sorenson, Gardner, Clark, Allen Christenson, Daniel Peterson, and others, I don't have him in an influential place in my own hierarchy. Just what Ferguson thought he saw in a photograph of a papyrus fragment that he could not read, and what he expected others to see, or claimed that they should have seen, has nothing whatsoever with what I see as important, other than as it influences his own social history, as part of how Ferugson became a poster boy for the disaffected. I personally see the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses as having nothing whatsoever to do with the priesthood ban, except as misapplied and misread through the influence of a pre-existing mythos inherited, not created, by the LDS.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA