Are black Africans descendants of Cain or Ham?

[cinepro]

The higher priesthood being denied to the Israelites comes to mind.

Interesting. So would you say that black members of the Church just weren't ready to have the priesthood, so God needed to withhold it from them?

[alter idem]

That is absolute hogwash.

Since when has God cared whether people were "ready" to accept something? Especially something as important as equality of the races, or the exclusion of an entire class of blessings from a group of people based on their skin color and assumed ancestry?

Keep in mind that racism is a learned attitude, usually passed from generation to generation. Thus, God would know that in order to erase racism from the Church, it would only take 2 or 3 generations of teachings. So if he instructed Brigham Young to preach against racism, there may be people in his day that wouldn't accept it, but those teachings would be disseminated through the culture and within a few generations, LDS wouldn't be generally (or institutionally) racist.

For example, what if Brigham Young had stood and said the following?

What if he said it over and over. What if each subsequent prophet had said it? What if it were in the manuals of the Church?

Sometimes the Church is a leader, and sometimes it's a follower. It would have been really great if, in this case, the Church had been a leader.

Yea, and it would be great if God could have perfect Prophets wouldn't it? And while we're at it, why doesn't he only allow perfect people to be members of his church, rather than letting a bunch of flawed people mess it up and 'drive away investigators' like we're always hearing others complain about?

Cinepro, you want God to micromanage us more than he chooses to.

You also want the church to be 'popular' and accepted by the world, which God does not care two figs for--in fact, he likes us to be 'peculiar' and have to be the outcasts and the 'uncool' people of the world. One look at Prop 8 and you'll see that's true...

Brigham Young was the right man to lead the Saints west and establish the church. He was not perfect, in fact he had many faults.-you of all people should know that! But the Lord uses real people, flaws and all, to do his work. Everything is in order and everything is working just the way he wants it. He likes his people to be tried in the refiner's fire and he wants them humble and teachable--that's how he perfects us.

[BCSpace]

Notice your list contains African locations.

I noted that. Those who believe in a global flood are assuming all Ham's descendants were black and they spread out, but clearly they are not(if you look at all the sons), so I discard that notion.

That's fine. But it can't be discarded vis a vis LDS doctrine without saying you disagree with LDS doctrine. I am not making any judgements in that direction. I'm simply stating what works within the realm of LDS doctrine.

If I am speaking as a globalist, I'd more assume that over time, genetics affected the skin color of the people--those who had more melanin lasted longer to reproduce their own kind and those with lighter skin most likely got cancer and died without reproducing. Whether they were all Ham's descendants, unless we are being dogmatic about it, we don't know...there is nothing in the scriptures to rule out other descendants of the sons of Noah moving into that area over time. But it's not unreasonable to see that darker skin colors that show up through recessives are more able to withstand the area, and so we should expect those peoples to have darker skin.

How many times must I say I agree?

But we do know in the doctrinal sense that, because of the global flood, other areas of Africa were not settled prior to their arrival.

But you aren't a globalist.

Probably not as the definition of a gloablist seems to include a certain moral relativism which is contrary to the gospel. If you want to give me your definitions of what a globalist must be, I'll tell you which of them I fit or agree with and I'lll certainly let you know if any of them are contrary to LDS doctrine.

Why are you promoting a globalist view?

Are you speaking simply about the global Flood? It is LDS doctrine. I am simply stating that within the realm of LDS doctrine, it is not wrong or unreasonable to assume, at least initially that African (including black Africans) are descendents of Ham and therefore subject to the curese of Cain.

My understanding is that LDS can be local flood or global flood believers, so we don't have to accept that version of events.

Depends on what you mean by can or can't. One can't accept a local Flood without being in disharmony with LDS doctrine. I readily admit that I accept a local Flood and therefore am in disharmony with LDS doctrine on this point. However, the LDS Church doesn't seem to crack down much on such beliefs. Whether it should or not is subject to debate, but I do believe that at a certain point, disharmony with doctrine requires excommunication. Obviously, I don't believe such is the case on this matter.

Not sure what you are saying..I don't believe I said anything about LDS doctrine on this topic. I said that beliefs that are not supported by scripture can be found in the manuals. That was my point, nothing more.

I'm simply pointing out that doctrine does not have to be stated in scripture to be doctrine or truth. In fact, I place doctrine above scripture because none but the prophets are qualified to interpret scripture which is how doctrine is generated. If all the scriptures in the world were to disappear and never come back or never be accessible again, the Church survives because of the prophets.

[cinepro]

Yea, and it would be great if God could have perfect Prophets wouldn't it?

They don't have to be perfect. They just have to be as good as President Kimball and President Hinckley.

Cinepro, you want God to micromanage us more than he chooses to.

Wait, I'm talking about the God that doesn't want women to have more than one pair of earrings. Which one are you talking about?

[ttribe]

Wait, I'm talking about the God that doesn't want women to have more than one pair of earrings. Which one are you talking about?

And if you could find basis for President Hinckley's advice to be revelation, you might have a point.

[SlackTime]

BCSpace,

Your insistence that anything and everything ever published by the Church is doctrine is folly and incorrect. I recommend to you This Official Release from the Church on the subject.

I myself have been collecting Church publications for many years and many of them have teachings in them that are NOT DOCTRINE.

You will get folklore and tradition in many. You will get speculation and expansion in some. The global flood is not required doctrine in the Church, it is a story with a gospel centered message about obedience to God.

Your insistence on these old myths are foolishness and NOT doctrinal. I encourage everyone to take BC's very fundamentalist stance on these concepts with a grain or two of salt.

There are very good articles on Blacks and the Priesthood here at BlackLDS.org. I particularly recommend the articles by Renee Olson and Armand Mauss.

SlackTime

[BlueDreams]

Since when has God cared whether people were "ready" to accept something?

Since when has he not? Whatever scripture I'm reading, it plays within the context of the cultural challenges that the people bring. In someway the gospel brings a progression to the people and their social situation. In other ways God is very, very patient with his people to get it right.

Especially something as important as equality of the races, or the exclusion of an entire class of blessings from a group of people based on their skin color and assumed ancestry?

Yes, even on this.

Keep in mind that racism is a learned attitude, usually passed from generation to generation. Thus, God would know that in order to erase racism from the Church, it would only take 2 or 3 generations of teachings. So if he instructed Brigham Young to preach against racism, there may be people in his day that wouldn't accept it, but those teachings would be disseminated through the culture and within a few generations, LDS wouldn't be generally (or institutionally) racist.

That is more faith in humanity than I would usually give them credit for. It took 2 centuries for us to get our society that was based on the statements like "all men created eqaul" while also allowing for slavery and for a black person to constitue 3/5 of a person. Even the man who would write these words and believed in them would own slaves, would continue to do so to his death, and altered his ideals for the realty that he saw before him. It would take almost a century after that for the longterm contradiction would come to a head. When it did, it wasn't simple ideas that did it, but bloody conflict and ultimately war that nearly permanently tore the nation in two. And it would take another century before those freed slaves could have fully freedom and live in a world that was akin to a caste system based on race. The change you related isn't brought by one voice or even successive voices in power, because there were plenty within the LDS community who spoke differently, including JS. It is one that needs the majority of the voices of all the people to have the desire for change to occur. Change of this scale needs more union in heart....a union that I honestly do not think the Church was ready for.

God did have words for people to turn to. It is easy to show that God believed man equally His children. But turning the heads of people is another story all together. But it's amazing how fast people can forget that, including today.

For example, what if Brigham Young had stood and said the following?

He'd be a little over a century before his time. Not even most abolitionist believed that.

What if he said it over and over. What if each subsequent prophet had said it? What if it were in the manuals of the Church?

Then God just did something He's never done before and taken over people's free will. I cannot say what would have occured if all of the leaders in church's history to deal with race were completely stellar, free from the racist humanity that made up its people. I can't say that anymore than to ask what ifs with every other church body that came with their own unique set of strife and challenges brought about by the human condition.

Sometimes the Church is a leader, and sometimes it's a follower. It would have been really great if, in this case, the Church had been a leader.

The Church is its people. The challenges that have been given to them have sometimes been met and the people have excelled. Sometimes they have fallen short. It would have been great if the church (ie. people) had the capacity to move past all human frailties and into that zion society. But it's not that simple and hardly ever is.

With luv,

BD

[cinepro]

And if you could find basis for President Hinckley's advice to be revelation, you might have a point.

Well, since I wouldn't classify a century long, general policy on a worldwide, race-based priesthood restriction as a "micro" issue it's kind of a moot point.

That being said:

"We

[Redefined]

And if you could find basis for President Hinckley's advice to be revelation, you might have a point.

Are you saying Gordon B. Hinckley didn't speak as a prophet of God when he gave this instruction?

[ttribe]

Are you saying Gordon B. Hinckley didn't speak as a prophet of God when he gave this instruction?

I'm saying it was good advice...I am also saying there is no indication it was "revelation". "Speaking as a prophet" does not require revelation in the process. Finally, I am saying that this is a thread derail.

[cinepro]

Since when has he not? Whatever scripture I'm reading, it plays within the context of the cultural challenges that the people bring. In someway the gospel brings a progression to the people and their social situation. In other ways God is very, very patient with his people to get it right.

That's the point of this thread.

God just didn't sit back and let history take his course, or allow racist LDS leaders and members go about their merry way. If He truly wasn't behind the priesthood ban and the interpretations of scripture being discussed in this thread, then He sat back and allowed these attitudes to be institutionalized and promulgated from generation to generation through official Church channels and policies, with many people believing that He was the source of these teachings.

I'm baffled by the apologetic that argues that God only intervenes on important, "macro" issues, and that the priesthood ban and other racist doctrines didn't meet His threshold for intervention.

Or the idea that there was something inherent in Church members of the 19th Century that allowed them to accept polygamy, communal living, or walking halfway across the country to start a life from scratch in the desert, but they just wouldn't understand or accept the idea that all races should be treated equally in every way, even if the Prophet told them as much.

[alter idem]

That's the point of this thread.

God just didn't sit back and let history take his course, or allow racist LDS leaders and members go about their merry way. If He truly wasn't behind the priesthood ban and the interpretations of scripture being discussed in this thread, then He sat back and allowed these attitudes to be institutionalized and promulgated from generation to generation through official Church channels and policies, with many people believing that He was the source of these teachings.

I'm baffled by the apologetic that argues that God only intervenes on important, "macro" issues, and that the priesthood ban and other racist doctrines didn't meet His threshold for intervention.

Or the idea that there was something inherent in Church members of the 19th Century that allowed them to accept polygamy, communal living, or walking halfway across the country to start a life from scratch in the desert, but they just wouldn't understand or accept the idea that all races should be treated equally in every way, even if the Prophet told them as much.

God intervenes when we humble ourselves to ask for his intervention; case in point, the 1978 revelation. Otherwise, he lets us go along our merry way and wallow in our own consequences, so it's not a matter of his only getting involved in 'macro' issues.

What the people are willing to accept from their prophet is also limited--case in point, the counsel about avoiding tatoos and more than one set of ear piercings, some will accept this counsel, others reject it. What the people were willing to receive is shown nicely in the stories about the children of Israel and Moses.

I guess if god wanted a perfect people, he could raise up stones and make them his children...but that wasn't the plan. It was to send us down here with our agency and allow us to learn by our own experiences, hoping we will call upon god and listen to his prophets and either cleave to the light or cleave to the dark. And in time, as we are perfected, in this life and the next, we'll purge from ourselves all but truth and light.

[katherine the great]

That is absolute hogwash.

Since when has God cared whether people were "ready" to accept something? Especially something as important as equality of the races, or the exclusion of an entire class of blessings from a group of people based on their skin color and assumed ancestry?

I disagree with you that it is hogwash. God has always cared about His children and has gone to great lengths to prepare people throughout the ages to receive things from Him. Abraham was eighty years old before God spoke to Him. Noah was of an even greater age. God allowed His covenant people to own slaves. I don't think it was because God approves of slavery. I think it was an ingrained part of their world that the Lord tolerated and instead of saying "Thou shalt not own slaves", He put some stringent restrictions on it. God allowed Israelite men to treat women as property. That is half of the population being treated in ways we would consider abominable simply because of their gender. We certainly would not tolerate this now, but God allowed it to happen at the time and I don't believe God loves His daughters any less than He loves His sons. I don't believe we should try to second-guess God. I believe He loves all of his children but He sees the past and the future and I think there is wisdom in the way He allows things to unfold. No, I do not believe that the priesthood ban was doctrinal. I believe it was a policy and when God would no longer tolerate it, He revoked it in no uncertain terms. I think God allows us to make mistakes and learn from them--as individuals and as groups. Christ said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" Fruit doesn't suddenly appear the moment you plant the tree. A lot of preparation and pruning and caring goes into the process. It takes time and I absolutely do believe that what seems like a long time to us is perceived very differently by the Lord.

[Uncertain]

Predicating blessings/cursings on the basis of heredity is extremely problematic this includes such ideas as the "curse of Cain" or "curse of Ham". Such concepts are greatly weakened if not falsified outright by population genetics. For example as you go back in time you reach a point where if someone has any living descendants they are the ancestors of everyone currently living. Estimates place this point within historical times i.e.(2,158 B.C. - 5,353 B.C.) ref( Rohde D, Olson S, Chang J (2004) Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature 431:562

[alter idem]

I disagree with you that it is hogwash. God has always cared about His children and has gone to great lengths to prepare people throughout the ages to receive things from Him. Abraham was eighty years old before God spoke to Him. Noah was of an even greater age. God allowed His covenant people to own slaves. I don't think it was because God approves of slavery. I think it was an ingrained part of their world that the Lord tolerated and instead of saying "Thou shalt not own slaves", He put some stringent restrictions on it. God allowed Israelite men to treat women as property. That is half of the population being treated in ways we would consider abominable simply because of their gender. We certainly would not tolerate this now, but God allowed it to happen at the time and I don't believe God loves His daughters any less than He loves His sons. I don't believe we should try to second-guess God. I believe He loves all of his children but He sees the past and the future and I think there is wisdom in the way He allows things to unfold. No, I do not believe that the priesthood ban was doctrinal. I believe it was a policy and when God would no longer tolerate it, He revoked it in no uncertain terms. I think God allows us to make mistakes and learn from them--as individuals and as groups. Christ said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" Fruit doesn't suddenly appear the moment you plant the tree. A lot of preparation and pruning and caring goes into the process. It takes time and I absolutely do believe that what seems like a long time to us is perceived very differently by the Lord.

The examples you used from history are excellent. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[BlueDreams]

That's the point of this thread.

God just didn't sit back and let history take his course, or allow racist LDS leaders and members go about their merry way. If He truly wasn't behind the priesthood ban and the interpretations of scripture being discussed in this thread, then He sat back and allowed these attitudes to be institutionalized and promulgated from generation to generation through official Church channels and policies, with many people believing that He was the source of these teachings.

What alter said. I'd write it in my own words, but it would be redundant.

I'm baffled by the apologetic that argues that God only intervenes on important, "macro" issues, and that the priesthood ban and other racist doctrines didn't meet His threshold for intervention.

I don't think God only intervenes on the macro issues.

Or the idea that there was something inherent in Church members of the 19th Century that allowed them to accept polygamy, communal living, or walking halfway across the country to start a life from scratch in the desert, but they just wouldn't understand or accept the idea that all races should be treated equally in every way, even if the Prophet told them as much.

Welcome to humanity. Polygamy made its way through and found a niche, walking halfway across the country was vaguely a necessity for their belief structure to survive, and communal living wasn't easily accepted because it never fully worked. They tried, but were not at a place to live by the law of consecration. It's not that the members are inherently handicapped by a specific issue other than being human. We are capable of amazing things. In LDS faith humans are capable of Enoch sized capabilities. But more often than not we fall short.

Even if the prophet shouted it from the roof tops, does not necessitate that it would occur. They shout from the rooftops to serve your spouse and yet the divorce rate is still higher than most would desire. They shout to have charity, patience, long suffering. There are still problems with all of these. They proclaim unity, and yet there are still plenty who are not knit as one. That they speak of it is no gaurantee that it will come to fruition. Speech is not much without the human yearning for change.

With luv,

BD

With luv,

BD

[cinepro]

I disagree with you that it is hogwash. God has always cared about His children and has gone to great lengths to prepare people throughout the ages to receive things from Him. Abraham was eighty years old before God spoke to Him. Noah was of an even greater age. God allowed His covenant people to own slaves. I don't think it was because God approves of slavery. I think it was an ingrained part of their world that the Lord tolerated and instead of saying "Thou shalt not own slaves", He put some stringent restrictions on it. God allowed Israelite men to treat women as property. That is half of the population being treated in ways we would consider abominable simply because of their gender. We certainly would not tolerate this now, but God allowed it to happen at the time and I don't believe God loves His daughters any less than He loves His sons. I don't believe we should try to second-guess God. I believe He loves all of his children but He sees the past and the future and I think there is wisdom in the way He allows things to unfold. No, I do not believe that the priesthood ban was doctrinal. I believe it was a policy and when God would no longer tolerate it, He revoked it in no uncertain terms. I think God allows us to make mistakes and learn from them--as individuals and as groups. Christ said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" Fruit doesn't suddenly appear the moment you plant the tree. A lot of preparation and pruning and caring goes into the process. It takes time and I absolutely do believe that what seems like a long time to us is perceived very differently by the Lord.

Alas, in the end, God is a moral relativist...

I can only wonder which positions that are currently held as "God-directed" by the Church will one day be instead explained as "God-tolerated" cultural artifacts. Hmmmm....

[katherine the great]

Alas, in the end, God is a moral relativist...

As a parent, I expect my children to quit pooping their pants by the time they are in school. I don't expect them to master it while they are still in diapers. I expect my children to tell me the truth, but sometimes they lie. I tolerate their misbehavior sometimes by delaying privileges that they may otherwise have earned. They cannot drive without me until they have proven to my satisfaction that they will drive safely and legally. I work with them constantly to someday become independent, productive adults but I don't expect them to achieve that all at once and I expect that some will arrive at that point sooner than others. That doesn't make me a moral relativist. It makes me a realistic and practical parent.

[paulpatter]

i voted no, but I should specify to say that they are not in the sense that they are no more descendants of cain/ham than most of humanity on earth today. Sooner or later there's a big likelihood most people would have some connection in descent.

Lightbearer: I take it as both....it's a binding revelation that was a correction of a grievous mistake called systematic racism.

As I have stated previously, I do not believe racism was the reason for the ban. However, statements by early Church leaders make that conclusion tempting, at least to some degree. In an earlier post (different thread, as I recall), I referenced statements by Brigham Young in Vol. 7 of the Journal of Discourses. I found them too distasteful to post. Here, however, are somewhat milder statements by other leaders. I think virtually all of us will find them unfortunate, to say the least.

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth [emphasis added] as well as God. (President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304)

And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have Salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground--it would also take the life of his children. (Wilford Woodruff in his journal) Note: I am researching a specific citation.

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse [was] placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pages 101-102)

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. . . . It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a nation of Priesthood holders. . . .nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement. . .about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace."

(Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems As They Affect the Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, BYU, Aug. 27, 1954)

I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. (George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939)

Makes for painful reading, doesn't it?

[kantgomo]

From what I understand it is Ham.

[Joseph Antley]

Since 1978, has any general authority of the Church -- First Presidency, the Twelve, Seventy, Presiding Bishopric -- made any comment about black Africans being descended from Ham or Cain and thus cursed from holding the priesthood?

If not (which I believe is the case, but I welcome correction), then I assume it is because the doctrine wasn't revealed by the Lord, and thus probably not true.

[BCSpace]

Since 1978, has any general authority of the Church -- First Presidency, the Twelve, Seventy, Presiding Bishopric -- made any comment about black Africans being descended from Ham or Cain and thus cursed from holding the priesthood?

If not (which I believe is the case, but I welcome correction), then I assume it is because the doctrine wasn't revealed by the Lord, and thus probably not true.

How would either of those conditions preclude the doctrine being from the Lord? If the doctrine was given by such, but prior to 1978, what is it about 1978 that makes it no longer doctrine? If the doctrine was published post 1978 in an official work, but not by a GA, how does that prevent it from being doctrine?

[cinepro]

As a parent, I expect my children to quit pooping their pants by the time they are in school. I don't expect them to master it while they are still in diapers. I expect my children to tell me the truth, but sometimes they lie. I tolerate their misbehavior sometimes by delaying privileges that they may otherwise have earned. They cannot drive without me until they have proven to my satisfaction that they will drive safely and legally. I work with them constantly to someday become independent, productive adults but I don't expect them to achieve that all at once and I expect that some will arrive at that point sooner than others. That doesn't make me a moral relativist. It makes me a realistic and practical parent.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's any harder to teach someone non-racist views as opposed to racist views. Both are learned. There isn't a milk -> meat progression from being racist to non-racist.

The theory of "unpreparedness" suggests that LDS in the 19th century were fundamentally different than LDS of the 20th century. I don't buy it. As I said before, they were able to radically alter their social views regarding polygamy, communal living and other factors that set them far apart from society. And by the mid-20th century, it could be argued that LDS policies on race lagged behind some parts of the gentile world; certainly, LDS of the early 1970's weren't being held up as the poster children for race relations.

It would be one thing if God made the decision to allow LDS to "go with the flow" and progress with the rest of society in their views of racial equivalence. But it's something else altogether for Him to allow the Church to institutionalize the policies and "doctrines" that would make the the Saints lag behind in their views of race relations (with lingering effects to the degree that the Prophet would need to address it in conference just three years ago).

[cinepro]

How would either of those conditions preclude the doctrine being from the Lord? If the doctrine was given by such, but prior to 1978, what is it about 1978 that makes it no longer doctrine? If the doctrine was published post 1978 in an official work, but not by a GA, how does that prevent it from being doctrine?

Well, Elder McConkie's "forget everything I said" speech effectively blurs any pre-1978 statements related to blacks and the priesthood. But he only referred to days past. So subsequent declarations would still be relevant.

But to answer Joseph Antley's question, I haven't heard any statements by any Church leader saying that the Priesthood ban was doctrinal or inspired.

[ttribe]

It would be one thing if God made the decision to allow LDS to "go with the flow" and progress with the rest of society in their views of racial equivalence. But it's something else altogether for Him to allow the Church to institutionalize the policies and "doctrines" that would make the the Saints lag behind in their views of race relations (with lingering effects to the degree that the Prophet would need to address it in conference just three years ago).

Why is one more believable than the other? God doesn't allow us to screw things up, is that what you're saying?