Cain Descendants and No Priesthood

[alter idem]

As far as I can tell, that concept has never been taught by Katherine the Great either.

Suppose you were in the President Monson's ward, and committed some infraction against him. The next week, he stands at the pulpit and says "It is now apparent to me that the Priesthood, and the blessings of the Temple, are not to be made available to jwhitlock, or jwhitlock's descendants, until all of Adam's children have first had the opportunity." Your son who is turning 12 next month now realizes he won't get the priesthood; your daughter who is engaged can no longer marry in the Temple.

I suppose you might react by saying to yourself and others "That's fine. No one said that everything would be fair in this life, or that everyone would have an equal opportunity."

But to others, that may seem like a "punishment" of some sort, and an especially unwarranted one on your descendants who had no involvement in the original infraction.

Sort of off-topic, but it's my thread, what the heck . This scenario took place in the FLDS congregations many times under Warren Jeffs (except for the thing about Adams' children) to men. Not only did they lose their priesthood, they lost their families as well--reassigned to 'more worthy' members. These men were ordered to leave the community to 'repent from afar' and wait for 'further word' from the Lord.

We can see that it was clearly a form of punishment, but some of the men who had this happen to them, complied humbly; and they are still waiting for him to change his mind, if he ever does. Why? I guess because they believe he's a Prophet and they aren't willing to risk their eternal salvation to believe otherwise.

What I think we observe is that people will not all react the same way to something that clearly seems wrong. They are able to find ways to deal with it which satisfy them, though others are not.

[cinepro]

It presupposes that some infraction had been committed by Africans, and that the ban in itself was arbitrary - neither concept of which is supported by what we know.

Can you summarize what it is that we "know" about the subject?

[jwhitlock]

Can you summarize what it is that we "know" about the subject?

See post #22 for my take on what we do know.

[alter idem]

See post #22 for my take on what we do know.

I looked at Post 22 for 'what we know on the subject'. Is this your answer?

So the best answer continues to be that we don't know why the ban was in place. What we do know is that it was rescinded, that it was done through revelation, and that the Lord evidently allowed the ban to continue in place for some time, despite repeated inquiries to the Lord from a number of prophets asking that it be lifted.

For something we know so little about, it's surprising we can find so much to discuss.

[jwhitlock]

I looked at Post 22 for 'what we know on the subject'. Is this your answer?

Yep.

For something we know so little about, it's surprising we can find so much to discuss.

While LDS are second to no one in their ability to speculate, it needs to be identified as such, and not presented as fact.

Our enemies have become quite proficient at presenting their speculative conclusions about our history and doctrines as fact, despite any direct or clear evidence supporting those conclusions. FAIR exists to point those things out. Unfortunately, sometimes uninformed members of the Church buy into those conclusions without understanding how flawed they really are.

The priesthood ban is one area where there we simply can't draw any factual conclusions about its intent, yet that doesn't stop some people on this board from doing so.

[alter idem]

Our enemies have become quite proficient at presenting their speculative conclusions about our history and doctrines as fact, despite any direct or clear evidence supporting those conclusions. FAIR exists to point those things out. Unfortunately, sometimes uninformed members of the Church buy into those conclusions without understanding how flawed they really are.

The priesthood ban is one area where there we simply can't draw any factual conclusions about its intent, yet that doesn't stop some people on this board from doing so.

Yes, but can you blame them? We set ourselves up to have to keep discussing it because members still bring up the speculations (not based in scripture) to explain or justify it. This was why I started the thread. This notion that Ham's descendants are also Cain's descendants is not scriptural. It comes from non-LDS protestant beliefs, yet LDS still cite them and use them to explain the ban--and then they attribute it to God. I just don't see how when there is no revelation to point to, we can insist on this position. I think 'we don't know' is appropriate, unless we get more information.

[jwhitlock]

Yes, but can you blame them? We set ourselves up to have to keep discussing it because members still bring up the speculations (not based in scripture) to explain or justify it. This was why I started the thread. This notion that Ham's descendants are also Cain's descendants is not scriptural. It comes from non-LDS protestant beliefs, yet LDS still cite them and use them to explain the ban--and then they attribute it to God. I just don't see how when there is no revelation to point to, we can insist on this position. I think 'we don't know' is appropriate, unless we get more information.

Yet "we don't know" is unacceptable to some people - for reasons I fail to understand. The fact is, we simply do not have enough information to "know" one way or the other.

Again, I don't mind speculating as long as it's labeled as such. The problem is, we have had speculation presented as fact of the Cain-Ham theory. Then, as that is called into question, other members of the Church speculate - and again present it as fact - that the ban was a mistake, or just the product of Brigham's prejudices, or whatever. After that, the enemies of the Church pick up all the speculation, tie it all up into one package, and present their Mormon-bashing speculations about it all as fact.

Perhaps more than anything else, the ban lends itself to this kind of abuse. One hopes that once the speculative nature of much of the discussion that goes on about the ban is brought to light, most rational people will see that "we just don't know" is acceptable at this point in time.

Then again, maybe I hope too much.

[katherine the great]

I'm going to repeat what I said on another thread.

While Joseph may have ordained certain blacks, it does appear that this stopped while he was still alive and therefore was implemented by him. Since we don't have a specific account of when and why it was implemented, everything is based on conjecture and hearsay. In any case once the ban was implemented it could only be removed by revelation. The fact that all subsequent prophets upheld the ban until 1978 is evidence that however it started, the Lord upheld it until the time was right.

Priesthood has always had certain requirements and those requirements have changed throughout history. Furthermore I think people forget how much authority God has given his prophets. Matthew 18 has some interesting words on this:

However, it was instituted it was binding until the Lord allowed it to be unbound.

This is a really interesting comment that I've never even considered. The scripture on "binding" this cites is actually quite nonspecific and so, obviously is interpreted in all different sorts of ways. Is what you are proposing is that God allows prophets to institute doctrine (even incorrect doctrine) and sanctifies it through virtue of their office as Prophet until He moves another prophet to remove it? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth--just to clarify your proposal.

[katherine the great]

For something we know so little about, it's surprising we can find so much to discuss.

Lol! Isn't that the truth?

[DanGB]

This topic gets beaten to death every few years. The Church officially currently maintains silence about the reasons for the practice, including when and how it started. This allows a multiplicty of beliefs in the Church without any of them being heretical, including (1) a belief that the practice traces back either to Cain or Ham and continued uninterrupted (except for some erroneous ordinations permitted by Joseph Smith) until 1978, and that this principle was revealed in some manner to Joseph Smith (or perhaps Brigham Young) (2) a belief that the practice did not pre-exist the Restoration, and began either during the ministry of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young by unrecorded revelation, (3) a belief that the practice began on a pragmatic basis (or a culturally conditioned one), by Brigham Young, during the time that the issue of Black African American slavery was tearing apart the United States, but over time became so entrenched that the Brethren determined that it could be ended only by a special "revelation" as distinct from the ordinary "inspiration" under which other changes are made in the Church. One can also believe, without being heretical, that Black Africans are descendants of either Cain or Ham or both, and that the practice really did apply to anyone with any Black African ancestry (including a disbelief in population dynamics and genetics that indicate that everyone has Black African ancestors). One can also believe, without being heretical, that the practice was not tied to a "curse" of Cain or Ham, but simply a policy, principle or practice that was timebound and tied to those identified as of Black African descent.

And there is one more conclusion and/or position to take that is also not heretical:

"It was wrong"

this position does require, however, an abadonement of denial and a persecution complex as members. It is the easiest conclusion to reach, IMO, base on our history and what we KNOW, as opposed to what we don't know and have to speculate about in order to justify it as loyal members. But being honest with our doctrine and scripture, there was no support for the practice as anything but that- "a practice".

Brigham Young, and many presidents after him were simply influenced by the cultural pressures of racism that many succumbed to. President Kimball finally demonstrated the courage, based on huge social pressure, to change the practice after much prayer.

[And for those loving Texas football, Colt was most impressive today during a beatiful day at Austin today!!]

[cinepro]

While LDS are second to no one in their ability to speculate, it needs to be identified as such, and not presented as fact.

...

The priesthood ban is one area where there we simply can't draw any factual conclusions about its intent, yet that doesn't stop some people on this board from doing so.

If a Prophet or Apostles tells the saints "Here's what the scriptures say, and here's what they mean...", then believing him isn't a matter of speculation, it's a matter of faith.

[jwhitlock]

If a Prophet or Apostles tells the saints "Here's what the scriptures say, and here's what they mean...", then believing him isn't a matter of speculation, it's a matter of faith.

My faith on important issues or doctrinal statements comes after I confirm it with the Spirit. From what I understand, we as LDS have always been counseled to confirm what we're told with the Gift that we've been given, so that's what I try to do. Frankly, there have been times that I've not gotten the confirmation on something that has been said, and so I just put it aside.

I also understand that some leaders of the Church sometimes do the same things that the general membership does, when it comes to speculation presented as fact. As I've studied what Church leaders have said over the decades, I've found some of those leaders more prone to this than others. Interestingly enough, those leaders of the Church that I respect the most and listen to most closely are those who are very careful about making "factual" pronouncements, as it were.

On the other hand, taking everything that's been said into consideration, I do find the leaders of the Church to be generally several magnitudes more reliable in what they say than most other people. Hence, I find them to be a good guide for counsel and for consideration of what they say as truth - always, of course, subject to confirmation by what I've been given.

[cinepro]

My faith on important issues or doctrinal statements comes after I confirm it with the Spirit. From what I understand, we as LDS have always been counseled to confirm what we're told with the Gift that we've been given, so that's what I try to do. Frankly, there have been times that I've not gotten the confirmation on something that has been said, and so I just put it aside.

That's fine, but when indeed LDS leaders interpret the scriptures, release statements signed by the First Presidency and otherwise teach such things without ever rescinding or correcting those teachings through the years, you lose your right to criticize other Church members for believing them (or accusing them of "speculation").

When they say "Here's what the Prophets and Apostles have said, and I believe it", they're not speculating.

[jwhitlock]

That's fine, but when indeed LDS leaders interpret the scriptures, release statements signed by the First Presidency and otherwise teach such things without ever rescinding or correcting those teachings through the years, you lose your right to criticize other Church members for believing them (or accusing them of "speculation").

You wrongly assume that the pronouncements of LDS leaders never need any interpretation, or that things like contextual understanding are unimportant. Anti-Mormons over the years have made misinterpretation of what Church leaders have said an art.

Frankly, when LDS Church members limit their acceptance and understanding to what Church leaders have actually said, and to what is official doctrine of the Church, there usually isn't any problem. When they go beyond that and speculate as to intent and meaning, presenting that speculation as fact, when there are no clear statements concerning that intent and meaning, then they are on shaky ground.

When they say "Here's what the Prophets and Apostles have said, and I believe it", they're not speculating.

When they quote a General Authority, and then say "here's the clear intent of what he meant", when there is no clear statement of that intent at all, then they are speculating. That's really what we are talking about here, despite your attempts to misdirect the discussion.

Frankly, if a quote can stand on its own without any explanation, then it can be considered clear. When someone has to explain what it means, then it's speculation. I consider that I have every right to identify unsubstantiated speculation when it occurs.

Perhaps, you have an example that you'd like to give for us, since you apparently consider me guilty of unwarranted "criticism" on this subject.

[O-Brother]

I didn't want to derail existing threads, so I'm starting another Cain, Blacks and the Priesthood thread (sorry )

This is really bothering me because I feel there's got to be bits of truth in this, but I think there is also a lot of error.

When Bruce R. McConkie said that he and others spoke with limited knowledge on this subject, he was correct. Brigham Young's knowledge was limited and his explanations for the policy were based on beliefs born during the dark ages of apostasy and to justify slavery. If the ban was approved or appointed by God, then there must have been some other reason for it than what he identified.

Do you want me to address these issues? I have a few possible answers. However, I'd like to mention that you do err when you say these past leaders had "limited" knowledge. To start, we need to verify that this statement is actually true. On what basis was their knowledge limited? Lack of inspiration? Did they say their knowledge was limited on the subject? Which scripture demonstrates that their knowledge was limited? If we establish that their knolwedge was indeed limited, then we can proceed to understand their statements, the curse itself and the mark.

I think they had plenty of knowledge on this and other subejcts, here's my basis for this statement:

"The greater priesthood administers the gospel and holds

[Calm]

"Forget everything I have said, or what

[O-Brother]

]http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#mcconkie

It was BR McConkie who said they had limited knowledge and understanding, not alter idem.

Which poses the question: if he was wrong before this statement, what makes you think he was not wrong after it? Because his denial of previous knowledge and doctrine overrides even what's written in Moses 7:22. If you take the statement above for granted, we got a problem.

[Calm]

Which poses the question: if he was wrong before this statement, what makes you think he was not wrong after it? Because his denial of previous knowledge and doctrine overrides even what's written in Moses 7:22. If you take the statement above for granted, we got a problem.

Well, he was present when the revelation occurred so there is, imo, a chance that his understanding just might have been altered by that toward a greater truth.

As far as what is written in Moses 7:22 it would depend on how you choose to interpret it.

PS: Seed of Cain does not equal Canaanites, the last are the seed of Canaan and I don't believe there are any scriptures describing Canaan's curse as having to do with skin colour if one chooses to interpret 7:22 literally and not symbolically.

[O-Brother]

Well, he was present when the revelation occurred so there is, imo, a chance that his understanding just might have been altered by that toward a greater truth.

As far as what is written in Moses 7:22 it would depend on how you choose to interpret it.

PS: Seed of Cain does not equal Canaanites, the last are the seed of Canaan and I don't believe there are any scriptures describing Canaan's curse as having to do with skin colour if one chooses to interpret 7:22 literally and not symbolically.

Well, I won't comment on that since I wasn't there and can't say for sure what his understanding was anymore than you can. As for 7:22. That's Joseph's writing. I can only go by what he wrote and not make it subject to personal interpretation or guess what it might mean.