Curse Of Cain

[Zeta-Flux]

I just received the FAIR newsletter, wherein it says:

"Here is a list of three myths that are often repeated, and simply must stop. Myth #1: Blacks couldn't have the priesthood because they had the curse or mark of Cain."

I appreciate Scott Gordon attempting to address this issue, but I think this statement (and his reasoning which follows) is misleading for a number of reasons.

1. People didn't just bring this view in from their protestant backgrounds--I agree that they did bring it in. If that was where it ended, that would be great. But it was taught, by the President of the Church, as the reason for the ban, in his official capacity as a prophet over the church. He claimed prophetic authority, and said it in the name of Jesus Christ.

2. This teaching has never been repudiated by the church.

I'm willing to accept, if the Church teaches it, that Brigham Young was wrong. But it has not done so, as far as I can tell. Calling this teaching a "myth" hides the historical fact that indeed that WAS the official reason for the ban. And not only that, it has never been refuted.

(Note: I like his other two points.)

[Bikeemikey]

The fact it was taught by the church as the justification or reason for the ban does not mean any thing.

In fact if that was the rational and can now be shown to be inconsistent with evidence and scripture then why hold on to it.

(null)

Edited February 25, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible." -- President George Q. Cannon

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [in which it says 'if the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing [...] they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the Prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him'] ... said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves ..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 237-38)

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." -- Brigham Young

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied [...] Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." -- Brigham Young

Personally, the Spirit has never made me satisfied that President Young was teaching a true principle when he spoke of the Priesthood ban. Quite the contrary. Thankfully, we have the very first chapter of the Doctrine & Covenants, which states:

"Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

So can we please, please stop trying to defend this horrible policy? Is it really more comforting to think that the God of this world is a racist than that our leaders were, for a time, simply wrong?

Some really good papers for people to ignore:

Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery

Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood by his son Edward L. Kimball for BYU Studies

Edited February 25, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Jeff K.]

The defense or lack thereof is irrelevant. Telling people to stop defending the policy is the same as defending it. There is no sure justification in my view for one side of the issue or another. Whether one feels comforatable calling God a racist is also of a different stripe and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If God designated a restriction, that doesn't mean he automatically falls into one our our miniature mortal mind catagories with any degree of accuracy. Sexist, racist, fascist... heard it all before. It merely means that we are ready to abandon God if we do not understand why something happens or cannot comprehend why. Very self centered.

I prefer to think I am not of that stripe.

[BCSpace]

I just received the FAIR newsletter, wherein it says:

"Here is a list of three myths that are often repeated, and simply must stop. Myth #1: Blacks couldn't have the priesthood because they had the curse or mark of Cain."

I appreciate Scott Gordon attempting to address this issue, but I think this statement (and his reasoning which follows) is misleading for a number of reasons.

Been a long time since I got the newsletter. Perhaps with all the changes, I got lost somewhere.

Technically, the statement you quoted is true though perhaps it could be stated better. The ban was not because of skin color. The ban was because of lineage. But since the newsletter is no longer being sent to me, I don't know what the overall context is.

The Priesthood ban, that it existed, that is was divinely appointed, and that it had divine precedent, remains official LDS doctrine:

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

[juliann]

I find it disappointing beyond words that any church member would recycle "the curse of Cain" under any circumstances. It is absolutely false to claim the church has been silent. There has been enough said to members that no one has any excuse. I usually just quote the relevant portion of Pres. Hinckley's April 2006 public take down of all those who want to keep this alive. But I think it is useful to see the context because he inserts comments about the priesthood ban right smack in the middle of "racial slurs" and "racial hatred". These are strong, unequivocable words said in General Conference that cannot be passed over to favor previous prophets. That is not how our church works.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard

among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning

those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor

can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of

Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume

that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous

life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized

and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is

all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in

Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this

Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this,

then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more

involved in such.Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard

among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning

those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor

can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of

Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume

that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous

life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized

and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is

all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in

Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this

Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this,

then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more

involved in such.

[Tepui]

"The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible." -- President George Q. Cannon

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [in which it says 'if the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing [...] they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the Prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him'] ... said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves ..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 237-38)

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." -- Brigham Young

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied [...] Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." -- Brigham Young

Personally, the Spirit has never made me satisfied that President Young was teaching a true principle when he spoke of the Priesthood ban. Quite the contrary. Thankfully, we have the very first chapter of the Doctrine & Covenants, which states:

"Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

So can we please, please stop trying to defend this horrible policy? Is it really more comforting to think that the God of this world is a racist than that our leaders were, for a time, simply wrong?

Some really good papers for people to ignore:

Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery

Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood by his son Edward L. Kimball for BYU Studies

Why don't you stop promoting FAIR's purpose in life, that the Prophets of God are fallible when it comes to doctrine? Your quote from President Cannon is referring to their mortality.

Nephi & Moroni noted this about themselves:

"Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities" 2 Nephi 4:17

"I give unto men weakness" & "because thou hast seen thy

b

weakness

thou shalt be made strong" Ether 12

If the doctrine had been wrong per your opinion of President Brigham Young, then why did President Spencer W. Kimball note in OD2?

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood

The doctrine was upheld by the Quorums of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve until the 1978 Revelation. As a member of the LDS Church who raises your hand in General Conference and annually in Stake and Ward Conferences in support of the brethren, why do you have a problem with this?

Your quotes imply Brigham Young was deceived and will face punishment and that the Spirit is to tell you something different than He told to the leaders of the Church.

Just because you (or I) lack complete understanding of this or any other subject doesn't justify you, (I), or FAIR claiming the Prophets of God are fallible in the doctrine they give.

With kind regards..Tepui

Edited February 25, 2012 by Tepui

[BCSpace]

I find it disappointing beyond words that any church member would recycle "the curse of Cain" under any circumstances. It is absolutely false to claim the church has been silent. There has been enough said to members that no one has any excuse. I usually just quote the relevant portion of Pres. Hinckley's April 2006 public take down of all those who want to keep this alive. But I think it is useful to see the context because he inserts comments about the priesthood ban right smack in the middle of "racial slurs" and "racial hatred". These are strong, unequivocable words said in General Conference that cannot be passed over to favor previous prophets. That is not how our church works.

What does recycling the curse of Cain mean to you? Who is doing it? Who is continuing in racial hatred? The ban itself was not racist according to the official doctrine, being based on lineage. Where is the problem?

[juliann]

Just because you (or I) lack complete understanding of this or any other subject doesn't justify you, (I), or FAIR claiming the Prophets of God are fallible in the doctrine they give.

One more time:

How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume

that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous

life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

President Gordon B. Hinckley, April General Conference, 2006

[Tepui]

And I know of know teaching by President Brigham Young that he mentioned the "Curse of Cain" - which is ridiculous. The fact that FAIR has to submit a newsletter (which I have no desire to receive) about "the Curse of Cain" (as noted by the OP) and to peg it to Brigham Young, appears more to stir up contention.

[Tepui]

One more time:

So where do I disagree with you? Take it up with the Lord who waited until 1978!

Go spit on Him, if you wish. Leave his anointed ones alone.

The Lord is the head of the LDS Church.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Tepui

[Ares]

We alredy have multiple threads on this subject. The burden of proof is on those who say something was presented as doctrine (as distinct from tradition and practice).