Dispelling the Black Myth

[Calm]

Read this (especially post #31): LINK.

Also, read my posts in this thread: LINK.

And hopefully they will also take the time to read the posts that respond and in some cases refute your comments.

[kamenraider]

And hopefully they will also take the time to read the posts that respond and in some cases refute your comments.

Calmoriah, is that a picture of Elijah Abel that she's holding up?

Is it not a sketch of an unknown resident of Louisiana by Caroline Wogan Durieux (1896-1989) titled "He Believes Everything" made during a WPA project in the 1930's (long after Elijah Abel had died) and later published in a 1945 book called Gumbo Ya-Ya - A Collection of Louisiana Folk Tales by Lyle Saxon?

[Calm]

Calmoriah, is that a picture of Elijah Abel that she's holding up?

Is it not a sketch of an unknown resident of Louisiana by Caroline Wogan Durieux (1896-1989) titled "He Believes Everything" made during a WPA project in the 1930's (long after Elijah Abel had died) and later published in a 1945 book called Gumbo Ya-Ya - A Collection of Louisiana Folk Tales by Lyle Saxon?

The conversation you linked to contained sufficient information for one to draw conclusions from if one cares to, imo, I have no sense of duty to continue it here.

Okay, on second thought....whether or not Elijah Abel was obviously a black man in appearance, he was known to be black and yet was given the priesthood...so his appearance is really irrelevant imo unless one is suggesting that the early LDS measured one's lineage by appearance only...and there is plenty of evidence that wasn't so.

[juliann]

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

JH: One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

JH: Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

[kamenraider]

Alma 13:1-5

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained

[Obiwan]

A strong voice and testimony for the Faith, a kindred spirit. She will be missed.

[Libs]

I'm very sorry to hear that Renee Olson has passed. Did the FAIR article say what happened? What was the cause of her death? Was it an accident of some kind?

I saw Renee speak in Los Angeles a few years ago, at a Genesis Fireside. I think it was one of her first talks, right after her conversion. She was very witty and very funny. I really enjoyed her talk, which was basically her testimony and how she came into the church.

[Calm]

I'm very sorry to hear that Renee Olson has passed. Did the FAIR article say what happened? What was the cause of her death? Was it an accident of some kind?

Heart attack.

[Aka_me]

back in the BoM days...

one has to wonder why God would use an existing skin color (dark or black - strangely ambiguous isn't it? is it dark skin OR is it black skin? guess it's up in the air at this point) to mark people with.

everyone who is not cursed... can't tell the natural people from the cursed people.... sounds pretty retarded to me.

even the smallest amount of common sense would have told God to use a NON-naturally occurring color such as green or purple to mark the cursed people with.

and a God lacking any common sense is worthy to be worshiped?

I don't think so.

[Aka_me]

was God on vacation the day Joseph Smith ordained a black person?

why make an exception?

if dark / black people are forbidden, then what's the problem with CONSISTENTLY applying the ban?

maybe... God forgot there was a ban, and then later remembered, that must have the problem.

[Aka_me]

in the BoM days...

when people weren't cursed any more their skin lightened up, to reflect the fact that they aren't cursed any longer.

so in 1978, how come the forgiving of the curse didn't also lift the MARK of the curse, you know the dark/black skin?

why not lift the mark with the curse itself, like in the old days?

[cinepro]

cinepro:

The term myth still is appropriate.

A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

It's my impression that a "myth" is usually a story that, although not literally or historically true, still carries some lesson or value in being told. Hence, people can share, study and enjoy all sorts of myths and learn lessons from these stories in spite of their fictional origin, just as those stories undoubtedly illuminated their cultures of origin, whether or not the people at that time understood the unhistorical nature of the stories.

If that is the case, in what way could the story of invaliant blacks in the pre-existence or curses of dark skin in the OT be considered "myth"? Is there a greater lesson to be learned from telling these stories? If someone were to compile a book entitled "Parables, Allegories, Fables and Myths of the LDS People", would these stories have a rightful place in such a book?

Because as far as I can tell, the only value of these stories was to present a historical basis for the priesthood ban.

(Same for Holland's classification as "folklore".)

[LeSellers]

one has to wonder why God would use an existing skin color (dark or black - strangely ambiguous isn't it? is it dark skin OR is it black skin? guess it's up in the air at this point) to mark people with.

Since there were two separate curses, having a "black" skin, and having a "dark" skin color is not ambiguous.

Strike one.

everyone who is not cursed... can't tell the natural people from the cursed people.... sounds pretty retarded to me.

Just, I suppose, as all is evil to the evil-hearted.

Besides, your assertion, that the "normal" people cannot tell who's "cursed", shows you're just 'way off base.

even the smallest amount of common sense would have told God to use a NON-naturally occurring color such as green or purple to mark the cursed people with.

CFR that "common sense" would dictate how God should do anything. And please explain how, if God changed it, how "green or purple" would be a "NON-naturally occurring color". After all, within a generation or two, it would be "naturally occurring".

and a God lacking any common sense is worthy to be worshiped?

As

1. You have not shown God lacks "common sense", your implication is erroneous.
2. You have shown a distinct lack of "common sense", one s left to wonder how you would, if it's even possible for you to do so, recognize it if you saw it;
3. You have not shown where you got the authority to dictate what is worthy of worship, one is left to wonder why this charge has any value:

Therefor, your position is not worthy of serious attention.

I don't think so.

The first three words of your sentence demonstrate your problem.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

was God on vacation the day Joseph Smith ordained a black person?

I'll ask Him when I see Him. Then I'll report it to you, so you'll know, too.

if dark / black people are forbidden, then what's the problem with CONSISTENTLY applying the ban?

Since you clearly do not have the first clue about the Priesthood ban, answering this will not do you any good. For others, however, aka_me has conflated two separate things into a single one, and, as a result, has made a total hash of it.

The curse of Cain, as many will know this, apples solely to sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants. It was not about "black" (not "dark") skin. Others with black skin (Negritos, many Polynesians, etc.) were never so cursed.

The "dark" skin, the curse of Laman, was never associated with the Priesthood ban.

maybe... God forgot there was a ban, and then later remembered, that must have the problem.

Your lack of coherence is the problem.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

in the BoM days...

...

so in 1978, how come the forgiving of the curse didn't also lift the MARK of the curse, you know the dark/black skin?

How come a former smoker still has a high risk of lung cancer?

Show us where the Book of Mormon had anything to do with the Priesthood ban. Consider this a formal CFR.

Lehi

[Obiwan]

in the BoM days...

when people weren't cursed any more their skin lightened up, to reflect the fact that they aren't cursed any longer.

so in 1978, how come the forgiving of the curse didn't also lift the MARK of the curse, you know the dark/black skin?

why not lift the mark with the curse itself, like in the old days?

Several problems with your views....

1. The Book of Mormon references to "dark" "light" etc. are primarily referring to ones SPIRIT and COUNTENANCE, not their skin color. Learn to read scripture from a "religious" perspective, and you wouldn't make such mistakes. Although, to be accurate, in certain RARE instances the book does imply that the Lamanites were actually a darker skinned people. Such however, is not unheard of. More primitive peoples have often been considered "darker" than their more modern and/or righteous counterparts physically also, not simply spiritually.

2. The Priesthood "ban" was ONLY for those of "African" decent. Even whites were denied the Priesthood due to such a lineage. Further, BLACKS of the Islands, some other country's, and some of Central/South America WERE given the Priesthood, and they were just as black, as well as all other colors. The ban was lineage, not skin color or racism.

3. If one actually knows scripture, they would know that the Priesthood has been restricted many ways, including by race/lineage, etc. In fact, even the Gospel, and who are the "chosen" people were restricted by race. Even Christ restricted the Gospel, for it took Peter AFTER Christ's death to get a revelation to then finally take the Gospel to "non-Jews". Was Christ a racist???

Thus, learn some "truth" and facts for a change rather than looking at the easy information and judging with your modern perceptions. Don't get me wrong, I once left the Church myself primarily for this issue. But, I was wrong, as you are in your judgments?

[Aka_me]

I've talked with church members in real life who knew God created the priesthood ban. and I've talked with church members in real life who knew God didn't create the priesthood ban but was merely the product of the racism of church leaders.

and I felt sorry for both in that their concept of God is too careless and haphazard to actually produce official revelation stating the REAL cause of the priesthood ban as being either Divine or human.

[Skylla]

Aka_me: You are banned from the thread. Post respectfully.

Skylla

[Libs]

Heart attack.

Thank you. I'm very sorry to hear that.

[Obiwan]

I've talked with church members in real life who knew God created the priesthood ban. and I've talked with church members in real life who knew God didn't create the priesthood ban but was merely the product of the racism of church leaders.

and I felt sorry for both in that their concept of God is too careless and haphazard to actually produce official revelation stating the REAL cause of the priesthood ban as being either Divine or human.

1. God doesn't actually speak on "everything" as to the "whys". But, let me give you a clue on some possibility's. What happened at the same time in this country and really much of the world when the Revelation came that lifted the ban? Did you happen to notice that racism essentially ended, especially in this country? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Priesthood wasn't given to those of African decent because of racism? And I'm not talking about racism by LDS, I'm talking about the racism of the world..... Did it ever occur to you that God chose not to give that sacred institution to a people who really wasn't even "free" yet, and that the racism by others also who cause issue the same???

2. You do know that a revelation finally was given, and that the revelation indirectly states that the ban was directed by God? Of course, I'm not saying there was a "direct" revelation for instituting the ban, but as the Church does many things, revelation to the leaders directly guides much of how this church operates.

Further, given that I've studied this issue well, I know full well that the ban wasn't human origin, and I know that the Church and most of it's members and leaders were not racist. They in fact preached against such evils. Now, was there some ethno-centrist statements. Yes. Was there some views of various people attempting to "explain" the whys of the ban, that were wrong and even outright disrespectful? Yes. But, such is the human experience. When God doesn't say something, people are free to have their own views, and up until the last 20-30 years people felt more free to teach what they felt. Today however, the Church strives to ensure only "doctrine" is taught, not speculations no matter how true they might be, because sometimes they are false as we all have learned.

Welcome to life....

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I don't know how apologetic a dictionary is.

[Libs]

Did it ever occur to you that God chose not to give that sacred institution to a people who really wasn't even "free" yet, and that the racism by others also who cause issue the same???

I've heard this explanation, before, but does it really make sense to give the priesthood to a people (a race) that was actually perpetuating the racism...and not to their victims? Doesn't seem right, does it?

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Jesus went only to the Jews.

Only the first born son of a Levite Priest could hold the Priesthood.

Seems like God can give the priesthood to whom ever he wants to, or decline to whom ever he wants to too.

[Libs]

Libs:

Jesus went only to the Jews.

Only the first born son of a Levite Priest could hold the Priesthood.

Seems like God can give the priesthood to whom ever he wants to, or decline to whom ever he wants to too.

I wasn't questioning that. Yes, God does as He pleases, I agree.

I was questioning the reasonableness (which is really just speculation) of "punishing" the victims and rewarding the victimizers.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I've never looked at the Priesthood as a reward or as a punishment.