Are black Africans descendants of Cain or Ham?

[cinepro]

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

I think we need to ask ourselves if we believe there is any point at which God will intervene in the running of the Church.

If that point is somewhere above 100+ years of denying the priesthood blessings to an entire race of people and perpetuating a mistaken doctrine among the faithful Saints, then every doctrine and policy below that is suspect.

But since I ultimately suspect God has allowed us to "screw up" issues related to Book of Mormon historicity, the requirements for Temple worthiness, and the specifics of the Word of Wisdom (among other things), in the end I must heartily agree with you that God does allow His Church to royally (and perpetually) screw big things up. How great the wisdom and the love, indeed.

[DH]

Don't know, don't care. The question is irrelevant to the Gospel.

DH

[erichard]

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.

Hi Joseph,

I believe that President Young was basically correct in his teachings, but the problem was that more needed to be revealed to completely understand the matter. Because the church did not qualified for further revelation, they eventually lost key truths they did have concerning this important Priesthood matter.

I am sure glad that the Lord has given those who will listen further knowledge by revelation about this.

Richard

[ttribe]

I think we need to ask ourselves if we believe there is any point at which God will intervene in the running of the Church.

If that point is somewhere above 100+ years of denying the priesthood blessings to an entire race of people and perpetuating a mistaken doctrine among the faithful Saints, then every doctrine and policy below that is suspect.

You mean like the apostasy, which lasted far longer than 100+ years, during which the priesthood (and its attendant blessings) was denied to ALL of humanity? I'm thinking the mantra about God's time vs. man's time plays a role here.

But since I ultimately suspect God has allowed us to "screw up" issues related to Book of Mormon historicity, the requirements for Temple worthiness, and the specifics of the Word of Wisdom (among other things), in the end I must heartily agree with you that God does allow His Church to royally (and perpetually) screw big things up. How great the wisdom and the love, indeed.

Your "wisdom" is exceeded only by your cynicism...and it's just so endearing.

[structurecop]

You mean like the apostasy, which lasted far longer than 100+ years, during which the priesthood (and its attendant blessings) was denied to ALL of humanity? I'm thinking the mantra about God's time vs. man's time plays a role here.

Uh... "dispensation of the fulness of times" ring a bell?

[ttribe]

Uh... "dispensation of the fulness of times" ring a bell?

So? That means that God will intervene whenever we are remotely close to making an error in the application of doctrine?

[BCSpace]

Well, Elder McConkie's "forget everything I said" speech effectively blurs any pre-1978 statements related to blacks and the priesthood.

Considering the non doctrinal nature of the speech, I don't think it means anything at all.

[structurecop]

So? That means that God will intervene whenever we are remotely close to making an error in the application of doctrine?

I realize your understanding of the circumstances surrounding the "priesthood ban" are likely more nuanced than the average member. But do you think they are more nuanced than the average General Authority pre-1978? If so, then it wasn't just that we were "remotely close" to making an error. We were leaps and bounds over the "error" threshold.

[ttribe]

Considering the non doctrinal nature of the speech, I don't think it means anything at all.

Of course you don't.

[toon]

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.

I think there are plenty of examples in the scriptures of God allowing a people to continue in a heresy, to their own detriment and in a way that was detrimental, at least in the short term, to God's plan.

I've considered the possibility that God allowed the Church to continue with the priesthood plan, giving the Church a chance to work it out on its own. Only when the Church blew that chance (or chances) did God step in with the 1978 revelation. Sure, the prolonged continuation of the ban may have hurt the Church's growth in the short term, allowing critics to level the accusation of racism and making the Church less attractive in certain communities. But I don't see how it negatively impacted God's plan in the long run.

[ttribe]

I realize your understanding of the circumstances surrounding the "priesthood ban" are likely more nuanced than the average member. But do you think they are more nuanced than the average General Authority pre-1978?

I have no idea...especially since I turned 7 in 1978.

If so, then it wasn't just that we were "remotely close" to making an error. We were leaps and bounds over the "error" threshold.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. First, I don't believe the affected population of members of the Church was near as numerous as it is now. Second, we are essentially talking about the correct application of an ordinance; is it really that different than an incorrect baptism, for example? Consider your answer in light of the restoration of foregone blessings as a result of Temple work and what knowledge we do have regarding the Millennium?

[BlueDreams]

I am sure glad that the Lord has given those who will listen further knowledge by revelation about this.

funny stuff, that. It's filled with more holes than swiss cheese

with luv,

BD

[structurecop]

I have no idea...especially since I turned 7 in 1978.

Give me a few minutes and I'll come back with your approximate age, give or take 2 years.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. First, I don't believe the affected population of the Church was near as numerous as it is now.

We're all affected by it, in my opinion, and will continue to be for quite some time. For some reason, we don't have the magic ability of certain political parties to instantaneously shed our history, regardless of how well-intentioned and accepting we are today.

Second, we are essentially talking about the correct application of an ordinance; is it really that different than an incorrect baptism, for example? Consider your answer in light of the restoration of foregone blessings as a result of Temple work and what knowledge we do have regarding the Millennium?

No, I don't think it's that different (for me) but it might be quite a bit different of an experience for someone who was denied the priesthood prior to 1978. Also, I see a double standard among certain amateur apologists who would lambaste another denomination for a certain mode of baptism (or other perceived ritual shortcoming) but turn a blind eye to just how maleable ordinances, blessings, and even membership really are.

[ttribe]

Give me a few minutes and I'll come back with your approximate age, give or take 2 years.

I'll save you the trouble...I'll be 38 next month.

We're all affected by it, in my opinion, and will continue to be for quite some time. For some reason, we don't have the magic ability of certain political parties to instantaneously shed our history, regardless of how well-intentioned and accepting we are today.

I don't disagree with the notion of a residual effect...reminds of some scriptures about consequences being visited upon subsequent generations.

No, I don't think it's that different (for me) but it might be quite a bit different of an experience for someone who was denied the priesthood prior to 1978. Also, I see a double standard among certain amateur apologists who would lambaste another denomination for a certain mode of baptism (or other perceived ritual shortcoming) but turn a blind eye to just how maleable ordinances, blessings, and even membership really are.

Which amateur apologists?

[ttribe]

Double post.

[ttribe]

Deleted...because it seem I don't know how to use Message Boards.

[ttribe]

Deleted - I kept hitting that "Reply" button apparently.

[ttribe]

This really is rather embarrassing.

[cinepro]

Your "wisdom" is exceeded only by your cynicism...and it's just so endearing.

I'm pretty sure had I been alive in 1885, I would have been saying that the Church should stop practicing polygamy. Had I been coherent in 1977, I would have been saying that the priesthood ban wasn't doctrinal and was based on an erroneous take on the scriptures.

And I'm sure there would have been those who told me I was just endearingly cynical. I guess that's the burden I bear. But in a church that moves on continuing revelation, it might just be that I'm before my time.

[ttribe]

I'm pretty sure had I been alive in 1885, I would have been saying that the Church should stop practicing polygamy. Had I been coherent in 1977, I would have been saying that the priesthood ban wasn't doctrinal and was based on an erroneous take on the scriptures.

And I'm sure there would have been those who told me I was just endearingly cynical. I guess that's the burden I bear. But in a church that moves on continuing revelation, it might just be that I'm before my time.

Uh huh.....

[structurecop]

This really is rather embarrassing.

I don't think it's you...

[katherine the great]

Hi Joseph,

I believe that President Young was basically correct in his teachings, but the problem was that more needed to be revealed to completely understand the matter. Because the church did not qualified for further revelation, they eventually lost key truths they did have concerning this important Priesthood matter.

I am sure glad that the Lord has given those who will listen further knowledge by revelation about this.

Richard

You actually believe that garbage?

[erichard]

You actually believe that garbage?

Hi katherine,

I do. Think of how many mock the Book of Mormon after reading a bit of it-- obviously not experiencing the excellent spirit with it.

Who do you believe has the gift today to receive and write the Word of the Lord?

Would it surprise you if the Lord's word today had no tendency to try to please the established wisdom of the world? And is not that which bothers you about these revelations?

Remember that President Young taught Adam-God and Seed of Cain teachings in General Conference. I agree that these teachings he gave have serious problems.

Do you agree that the teachings of the church President today in General Conference could have serious problems?

Where should I put my most critical trust if it is not in the Word of the Lord oracles?

I think of this by Joseph:

I never told you I was perfect

[Maya]

I put I'm not sure/ I don't know . . . and I could have added, I don't care. Also I could have added . . . Genesis doesn't say that (although I know there are other references).

I do know that persons of African heritage or citizenship have elect spirits (as do persons from all the earth's heritages). There is no difference that way.

Not to mention that we are all adopted into the house of Israel, anyway, upon baptism.

Mee too and I agree on what you say. I have a feeling that thsi tought was enherited from other religions the LDS were brought up with before LDS. I also have a feeling it was a good reason in those days to use for this today un-understandeble practice, which sorry to say, in fact in THOSE days was on it`s place amont those populatint the New Continent. Also, when you think of the posibilities of the growth of the church among Europeans.

IDK about Cain or Ham, but I'm fairly certain they are descendants of Noah, and thus Adam. Just like everyone else

I wonder what Brigham Young's vote would have been here. . . too bad we won't ever know that one, huh!

I think, that at the moment he knows a lot more than what he did then... Like I said it WAS a good enough explanatoin then, probably easier than if the leaders had jsut said that God said so... And anyway they might have said so... and liek today people would chase them with questions and they tried to find an answer. They tried to find a why to somethign God commanded ... they never said God said it was because..... Church leaders were chased for an answer... people got it.. so be happy... probably ONLY God only knows....

I think that horse is pretty ded... it was prettier when alive... the horse I mean...