Armand Mauss: 3 Unresolved LDS Historical Issues

[juliann]

Recall that for years many white Americans, if forced to shake hands with a black, would instinctively look at their hand afterwards to see if any of it had rubbed off.

Billy Graham declared that he would never see white and black children holding hands. The protestant record on race relations is horrific but they seem to get a pass because their practices were not as formalized as ours. We are doing much better in integrating than they are...including Evangelicals... but that never gets mentioned.

[kamenraider]

This is what you do to derail threads. You have been engaged in these discussions for so long that you probably have everything memorized. Yet each time you drag out the same old stuff as if you have never seen anything else. Now you are trying to pretend that Protestant ideas weren't picked up and used by Mormons...or something. You also know that the church has not taken each piece of bad information and disavowed it although there has been enough said to make it quite clear those days are over. But you will continue to cut and paste rather than acknowledge what the church is currently doing.

When you ask me to provide references and I do, it's "same old stuff" and "cut and paste"?LOL!

To me the problem is not whether or not the Church teaches the "curse of Cain" idea (I believe it still does -- see below) but that Church leaders and PR people have flip flopped from "curse of Cain" to "the Curse of Cain 'may' have been a 'misinterpretation.'"(see LINK)

I'm asking you again, produce one instance of the church currently promoting the curse of Cain or muster the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that they do not.

If you'll review my posts, you'll notice that I never said that the Church promotes the "curse of Cain." I did provide you with a reference from a current LDS Institute manual though. Church-owned Deseret Book also publishes and currently sells (along with places like BYU Bookstore) books such as Answers to Gospel Questions and Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith that teach it, as well as the Pearl of Great Price.

[Lamanite]

...current LDS Institute manual though. Church-owned Deseret Book also publishes and currently sells (along with places like BYU Bookstore) books such as Answers to Gospel Questions and Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith that teach it, as well as the Pearl of Great Price.

That part of your post was lame. And I think if you're honest with yourself, you'd be like- "Yeah, that was a pretty lame attempt at XYZ." I say "XYZ" because I don't know what you were trying to do.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Calm]

"...although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21

[juliann]

If you'll review my posts, you'll notice that I never said that the Church promotes the "curse of Cain." I did provide you with a reference from a current LDS Institute manual though.

The reference you provided is a full page illustration of Noah. I have never figured out what you think you gain by trying to trick people into accepting your fundamentalism.

http://institute.lds.org/content/languages/english/Institute%20of%20Religion%20Materials/Student%20Manuals/Religion%20301,%20Old%20Testament%20Student%20Manual%20Genesis-2%20Samuel~eng.pdf

[juliann]

The other blank link Kamenraider provided goes to the rantings of a rabid anti-Mormon who regularly sends obscene emails. He particularly targets women with abusive language. Again, more trickery by leaving out information.

[kamenraider]

Hello everyone, I expected to get 8 more posts today, but instead am greeted by "You can make 1 more posts until A minute ago." Juliann, would you please be so kind as to unlimit my posting privileges so I can carry on a FAIR discussion here?

edit: Now I see I've got 4 more posts. Not sure what's going on. I thought I was limited to 8 per day, but it's a new day and I don't have that many.

Calmoriah, to me it's pretty clear that Ham was also originally named Canaan:

Genesis 9:24-27

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant*.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

*26 footnote "a" JST Gen. 9: 30 . . . and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, pg. 555 says (see also the New Jerusalem Bible, scholars edition, Genesis 9:25-27, footnote 'f

[kamenraider]

The reference you provided is a full page illustration of Noah. I have never figured out what you think you gain by trying to trick people into accepting your fundamentalism.

http://institute.lds.org/content/languages/english/Institute%20of%20Religion%20Materials/Student%20Manuals/Religion%20301,%20Old%20Testament%20Student%20Manual%20Genesis-2%20Samuel~eng.pdf

Trick people, huh? You need to look at the page number of the actual manual, rather than the page count of the .pdf reader.

[juliann]

Trick people, huh? You need to look at the page number of the actual manual, rather than the page count of the .pdf reader.

I've provided the link so please provide the page number. Your CFRs are growing. As usual.

[juliann]

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote of why he may have been called Ham: "It is likely that Ham

[kamenraider]

I've provided the link so please provide the page number.

I already provided it. (hint: read post #98 again)

Your CFRs are growing. As usual.

I realize you feel you have nowhere else to go but ad hominem, but can we discuss the topic rather than me?

[tonyloaf]

(1) In the absence of a formal and public announcement of a divine revelation, how are the devout supposed to know the difference between doctrines originating from heaven and those originating in folklore?

Ultimately the same way that you would know regarding the truth of any doctrine: personal revelation. I don't think that a "public announcement" adds to the divine origin of a doctrine. However, public announcements do provide sanctuary for lazy people by giving them someone to blame if they are misled.

There is no clear revelatory origin for either the policy or the associated

[juliann]

I already provided it. (hint: read post #98 again)

I realize you feel you have nowhere else to go but ad hominem, but can we discuss the topic rather than me?

Asking for references is not ad hominem.

Here is something from the current manual on pg. 83 you might find interesting:

http://institute.lds.org/content/languages/english/Institute%20of%20Religion%20Materials/Student%20Manuals/Religion%20301,%20Old%20Testament%20Student%20Manual%20Genesis-2%20Samuel~eng.pdf

As you begin to study the expansion of the covenant

line, remember one thing. Sometimes we tend to

oversimplify the concept of a covenant people and

the heritage of certain groups of people. For example,

we tend to think of the Arabs as descendants of

Ishmael or Esau, the Jews as descendants of Judah,

the American Indians and South Pacific Islanders as

descendants of Laman, and so forth. In broad terms

all of these statements are true, of course, but through

centuries of intermarriage and conversion, the

[kamenraider]

Asking for references is not ad hominem.

It depends upon how you ask, I suppose.

Here is something from the current manual on pg. 83 you might find interesting:

http://institute.lds.org/content/languages/english/Institute%20of%20Religion%20Materials/Student%20Manuals/Religion%20301,%20Old%20Testament%20Student%20Manual%20Genesis-2%20Samuel~eng.pdf

It says "The important thing is that being Israel, or a covenant person,involves faithfulness as well as blood lineage. Thus, as Nephi said, repentance and faith in the Holy One of Israel is what determines whether one is of the covenant...", nevertheless when black members of the Church (who had already gone through faith, repentance, baptism and confirmation) received patriarchal blessings prior to 1978, they were not given a specific lineage of one of the tribes of Israel:

Although some black members of the church were given patriarchal blessings, declarations of lineage were omitted as a matter of policy.

--Irene M. Bates, Patriarchal Blessings and the Routinization of Charisma, Dialogue, vol. 26, no. 3, Fall 1993, pg. 7.

[juliann]

It says "The important thing is that being Israel, or a covenant person,involves faithfulness as well as blood lineage. Thus, as Nephi said, repentance and faith in the Holy One of Israel is what determines whether one is of the covenant...", nevertheless when black members of the Church (who had already gone through faith, repentance, baptism and confirmation) received patriarchal blessings prior to 1978, they were not given a specific lineage of one of the tribes of Israel:

Uh huh. Yup. Yeah, we know that. Don't forget to remind us that they were denied the priesthood prior to 1978, too! Isn't that the point of the thread? What I am curious about is what is your point in spamming what we aleady know?

What is new is a statement in an official church manual, along with a mention of Africa, that states "

[kamenraider]

Uh huh. Yup. Yeah, we know that. Don't forget to remind us that they were denied the priesthood prior to 1978, too! Isn't that the point of the thread? What I am curious about is what is your point in spamming what we aleady know?

I guess my point is that people can't become a part of the celestial family that is being created through temple sealings without first receiving the priesthood -- without the men first receiving the priesthood and the women and children being sealed to a priesthood holder, and I'm not sure whether you believe that a person being a descendant of Ham would have been legitimately disqualified from receiving the priesthood prior to 1978, or whether you believe that the ban was not of divine origin. What do you believe about that anyway?

What is new is a statement in an official church manual, along with a mention of Africa, that states "

[kamenraider]

It very well could be. But you also periodically present a John Taylor letter that is not considered authentic by the church with the intent of fooling people by leaving out the reference.

It's not a letter to anyone. It's a revelation from the Lord to John Taylor (see link to my blog in my signature for a photo of the document).

This is the reference I gave the last time I posted the revelation:

--Revelations in Addition to Those Found in the LDS Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, in New Mormon Studies CD-ROM: A Comprehensive Resource Library, SLC: Smith Research Associates 2009.

Interestingly D. Michael Quinn has this to say in his article LDS Church Authority and

New Plural Marriages, 1890- 1904 in Dialogue, Vol.18, No.1:

In 1976, J. Max Anderson's unpublished manuscript, "Mormon Fundamentalism" stated on page 156 that the 1886 revelation was "a little known, but authentic revelation of the Lord to John Taylor," but the published, abbreviated version of the manuscript that appeared in Polygamy Story eliminated this assessment and emphasized the uncertain historicity of the document. The latter position may have been required by Apostle Mark E. Petersen, who chaired the Church committee that shepherded Anderson's study to completion and publication. Elder Petersen's The Way of the Master, p. 57, had already stated in 1974, "To justify their own rebellion, certain recalcitrant brethren . . . concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886."

--ibid., pg. 29, footnote 90.

[juliann]

I guess my point is that people can't become a part of the celestial family that is being created through temple sealings without first receiving the priesthood -- without the men first receiving the priesthood and the women and children being sealed to a priesthood holder, and I'm not sure whether you believe that a person being a descendant of Ham would have been legitimately disqualified from receiving the priesthood prior to 1978, or whether you believe that the ban was not of divine origin. What do you believe about that anyway?

I have not seen near enough to convince me the ban was of "divine origin".... but it took divine intervention to get rid of it.

Do you agree with Brigham Young?

Sometimes.

[juliann]

It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this same organization [Mormon fundamentalists].

As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.

Furthermore, so far as the authorities of the Church are concerned and so far as the members of the Church are confirmed, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) its terms, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.

[Lamanite]

Thank you Juliann for having the patience to continue your involvement in this thread. Some of us have lost steam and are merely lurking.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[juliann]

Thank you Juliann for having the patience to continue your involvement in this thread. Some of us have lost steam and are merely lurking.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I think that it is very important that the unintiated are aware when fundamentalist teachings that reject modern prophets are passed off as "real" Mormonism.

[kamenraider]

I have not seen near enough to convince me the ban was of "divine origin".... but it took divine intervention to get rid of it.

Why would divine intervention even be necessary if it were just a misguided policy based on racist folklore rather than a "doctrine of the Church" based on "direct commandment from the Lord", as the First Presidency said?

Sometimes.

Great, but I was asking if you agreed with Brigham Young's views expressed in the quote I posted, specifically regarding whether or not Joseph Smith had Hamitic ancestry from Asenath.

[juliann]

I think it's wrong to view the words of either past or present prophets as having more authority. The words of all prophets need to be judged based on whether they square with the word of the Lord. If they deny any of the revelations that have been given, then I can't possibly support that denial. Truth is always the same -- it's eternal. "I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not." Even a prophet can't change an eternal truth revealed by God into a falsehood or a falsehood into a truth.

Well what do you need prophets for when you have Van Waggoner anyway. I'd have a little more confidence in the above declaration if you ever used a prophetic statement to support your belief in polygamy, Curse of Cain and Adam-God produced anywhere close to this century.

You can malign the First Presidency statement all you want. But it hasn't been rescinded, has it. It hasn't been corrected. So that is the church's stance. The relevation giving you permission to engage in polygamy isn't recognized. End of story. As it is with all of your decades old quotes about the priesthood ban.

[Jeff K.]

I think that it is very important that the unintiated are aware when fundamentalist teachings that reject modern prophets are passed off as "real" Mormonism.

I had a stake president, one who impressed me deeply. He always had sound advice, and he was an excellent example for all to see. I kept copies of some of his talks which I felt were inspired. After a number of years (as is the normal course) he was released. The new stake president was obviously of a distinct mettle, did things differently, but within the parameters set for his calling. I remember sitting in a meeting when a member of the high council said "President "so and so" would not do it that way...". The implication being we should adhere to an earlier policy. The former stake president's good friend, and counselor to the new Stake President interrupted and said something along these lines....

"President _______, is no longer your stake president. He no longer has stewardship over you. He was an excellent stake president who sought divine guidance in all things. But his stewardship over you is released, and that mantle now belongs to our present Stake President. He holds that responsibility, just as you hold the responsibiltiy to sustain him".

I have sometimes thought back to that, and I did not realize how thoughtful the answer was until I saw people take up the cult of personality, versus the calling of men and women by the Lord to lead. It helps keep me balanced and focused on what the church is about. There are always personalities that I will find pleasant, people who are insightful, and those who impress me with their ability to maintain the companionship of the Holy Ghost, but their stewardship defines their responsibility to me and mine to them within the confines of our doctrine. It is not for me to define or seek a consistency in all things that the Lord may view as his perogative (not mine).