Adjusting The Narrative: Brigham Young, Cain, Nephi, Etc.

[David T]

I've begun a series of blog posts over at Worlds Without End. I thought it would be of interest to posters here, and would like feedback and thoughts. Below are links to the posts, and brief summaries of the content:

Introduction and Proposal

The change to the 2013 header for Official Declaration 2 has significant ramifications fo the official narrative concerning the restriction of the priesthood and temple ordinances from people of black African descent. While it is easy to wash away statements made based on faulty traditional understandings, what are we to do when we have a record of Brigham Young making a declaration about the Seed of Cain "In the name of Jesus Christ?" - this posts explores these issues. and begins a series.

Part 1a - The Scriptural Curse and Seed of Cain

This post will explore the unique authoritative teachings surrounding Cain and his posterity found in the scriptural texts produced by Joseph Smith, how they relate to each other, and even how biblical references and allusions within them point even farther away from the justification of the idea of a perpetual genetic curse – let alone applied to all people of black African descent.

[cinepro]

How are we supposed to forget about it if you won't stop talking about it?

[David T]

For those interested in a teaser, the next parts involve A Tale of Two Canaans, and The Egyptus Objection.

[Senator]

Wonderful insights, David! Looking forward to reading more.

[cinepro]

For anyone in SoCal, my stake is apparently having a Marvin Perkins fireside this Sunday about "Blacks and the Scriptures". Of course, all he has to do now is stand up and read the new introduction to OD2, so it might be a short evening.

[The Nehor]

Simple reconciliation: Brigham Young stole this doctrine from Protestant faiths, gave it a bad LDS paint job, and said wrongly it was the Will of God. How is this so complicated?

[Cobalt-70]

I think it's an interesting proposal, but I think it stretches credibility. This isn't the only thing that Brigham Young claimed prophetic authority for, which the church later (sorta) rejected. His Adam-God doctrine is another example. It is so much more straightforward to just acknowledge that Brigham Young was a racist like countless other religious leaders of his time, and that he was wrong to preach his racist doctrines in the name of Christ. Nor is he the only Mormon prophet that got stuff wrong while claiming or implying the prophetic mantle. That's why, in theory at least, Mormons don't believe their prophets are infallible. I don't see how any good can ultimately come from trying to re-interpret and salvage false (and especially racist) prophecy. It may be painful in the short term, but ultimately Mormons will be better off if they just do the faith work necessary to make peace with the idea that Brigham Young sometimes was just talking out of his anus, even while claiming prophetic authority.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Jude2]

I know this is a little different reading of the Book of Mormon but I think there is a big lesson here we’ve been missing.

The Book of Mormon story is about racism and the prophets of the book were racist but it came to them through their racist Hebrew culture;

“…And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed…” Dan 11:35

“…Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried..” Dan 12: 10

Look at what the revered prophet Mormon writes;

“I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi….” 3 Nephi 5:20

Why would that matter to him except he wanted the reader to know he was white! But remember he’s writing this about 300 years after Christ, his feelings of pride about who he is was past down to him as his nation fell apart. Like Brigham Young he has a hard time throwing off his cultural biases.

In 4th Nephi there’s this division once again between the haves and have not’s; the Nephites “the true believers” and Lamanites who “rejected the gospel”. I can’t help but think the entire situation was based on race. Reading between the lines, perhaps the white Nephites began looking down upon their brown brothers and the Lamanites then saw them as a bunch of hypocrites causing them to reject the gospel.

The whole point of the Book of Mormon is that we can’t live in peace until we all “come unto Christ” and see each other as brothers and sisters.

[Calm]

Look at what the revered prophet Mormon writes;

“I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi….” 3 Nephi 5:20

Why would that matter to him except he wanted the reader to know he was white!....

In 4th Nephi there’s this division once again between the haves and have not’s; the Nephites “the true believers” and Lamanites who “rejected the gospel”. I can’t help but think the entire situation was based on race. Reading between the lines, perhaps the white Nephites began looking down upon their brown brothers and the Lamanites then saw them as a bunch of hypocrites causing them to reject the gospel.

There were no "ites" after Christ for quite sometime, by the end of that time if not before, chances are there were as many "brown" Nephites as there were "white" if they weren't all more or less the same through intermarriage by then. Being a "Lamanite" was all about belief, not about skin colour by then (even if one assumes that it was actually about skin colour to begin with).

Why did Moroni make a big deal about his descendancy? Perhaps because it 'proved' his position as prophet and recordkeeper?

Call for references that the Hebrews were "white" during biblical times.

[Jude2]

There were no "ites" after Christ for quite sometime, by the end of that time if not before, chances are there were as many "brown" Nephites as there were "white" if they weren't all more or less the same through intermarriage by then. Being a "Lamanite" was all about belief, not about skin colour by then (even if one assumes that it was actually about skin colour to begin with).

Why did Moroni make a big deal about his descendancy? Perhaps because it 'proved' his position as prophet and recordkeeper?

Call for references that the Hebrews were "white" during biblical times.

I think I’m coming from the assumption the Lamanites were a mixture of left over Jaredites and other Asians who wandered in.

Mormon calls himself “a pure descendant of Lehi” so he could trace his line back with no enter marrying.

As they reject the gospel they begin again to break up into “ites” and each group finally rejects Christ because of their pride.

[Calm]

Mormon calls himself “a pure descendant of Lehi” so he could trace his line back with no enter marrying.

And why was that important?

[David T]

I've posted my next part:

Adjusting the Narrative: Part 2b - The Blood of the Canaanites

Wherein I lay out why I feel that the traditional assumption/interpretation of Ham marrying someone 'with the Seed of Cain' from before the flood to perpetuate a definitive lineal 'curse' is actually unsupported by, and perhaps even contrary to, the full context of the scriptural text.

Edited March 21, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

It never made sense to me since only one son of Ham's was cursed and not all of them as supposedly it should have been if it was through his wife, the mother of his children the curse allegedly came.

[David T]

Doing a close narrative study of Abraham 1 really makes we wish Joseph had produced more. The explanation to Facs. 3 suggests a story of Abraham's meeting with Pharaoh was in the cards to be told. I wish it had been. There are hints as to how it turned out. My next post will be discussing the interesting dynamic of Pharaoh Prime, Abraham, and Abraham's contemporary Pharaoh.

The canonical narrative found in Abraham 1 has much more depth, relevance, and didactic potential than we often give it - and this comes directly from engaging the text itself. No egyptology or esoterica necessary.

Edited March 21, 2013 by David T

[David T]

In other words, even without even the need to apply Egyptology or any sort of ancient study, I find there is still much un-mined material in the text of the first chapter of Abraham as it stands that, I believe, has gone unnoticed or simply not expounded on because there has been the assumption “we have the answers already”. An inability to see the forest through the trees, so to say.

Especially, the relationships between the three key Egyptian Religious figures (Pharaoh Prime, Abraham’s Pharaoh, and the Priest of Elkenah) are very interesting, and I believe could have an extremely beneficial didactic reading for LDS when applied to interfaith relations. I’ll be touching on some of this in the next part.

It’s all a part of why I see the need for us to re-claim our modern and unique stories of Cain, Canaan, and the Abrahamic Pharaohs from their traditional relegation to simple and embarrassing justification for racial discrimination. They currently sit dead and unused for that reason. With the old assumed traditional meanings having lost relevance, there’s a void that needs to be filled.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t scriptural stories that in their own context really do, necessarily, express quaint racist ideas. I think it’s important to distinguish those that actually canonically do so (and address those in that context), from those that have only been assumed to do so to justify a policy or traditional belief.

There’s actually three types of Racism I’ve noted we can find connected with the scriptures:

1) Racism promoted both by characters in the text, and by the text narrative itself.

2) Racism promoted by characters in the text, but countered by the context of the author and overall narrative.

3) Racism imposed on the text by interpreters, but not necessitated by the characters, text, or narrative.

This is why I’m setting out the canonical narrative – as I see it – for current modern scriptural texts that have been commonly associated being of type 1 and promoting/justifying racism, and trying to determine if that is even what the text (or authors/characters within) are necessiarily promulgating.

This all builds the foundation for what I will be exploring in the Book of Mormon text – which I believe does include characters presenting racist ideas within the book, but also narratively prophetically corrects and overrules them as the narrative of the book plays out. IE, it is possible to say protagonists in the BoM promulgate harmful racist ideas while the BoM itself does not.

I am exploring the suggestion that the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham texts are in the category of group (3) above, while noting and acknowledging that this is not typical of all scriptural texts which incorporate racist ideas.

[David T]

For those following along at home:

Part 1c - The Priesthoods of Abraham and Pharaoh

[Maidservant]

I haven't read your blog posts yet (I will right after this), so maybe you already say this, but just from reading Genesis straight up, when God marked Cain (whatever that mark constituted), it was a blessing of protection. It was never a curse.

[Maidservant]

Something I wrote:

" "Where is thy brother? . . . I know not: am I my brother's keeper? . . . What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth from the ground! . . . my punishment is greater than I can bear . . . from Thy face I shall be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me . . . the Lord set a mark upon Cain lest any finding him should kill him . . ." Genesis 4:9-15

x x x x x x

In this passage, we find that what is broken on our earth among all mankind is the severance of brother from brother. That it is as brothers that we fight and kill each other. Who harms us? Our brother. Who do we harm? Our brother. Who oppresses us? Our brother. Who do we oppress? Our brother. Whose blood cries to us out of the ground? Our brother's.

When we are in enmity with our brothers, this passage suggests that also God is hidden from us. That we become strangers on earth. That we are just wandering here in this existence meaninglessly. We might even say then, and judge ourselves to be worthy of some justice where we, too, die or are executed, since we have offended our brothers.

But we see that God has marked us all with his protection. We have offended the face of God with our killing and enmity of each other yet still God says--LIVE. You will live!

Because it is our small minds, our small hearts that say--my brother must die for this-and-this reason; our small sight that says--because I have done this evil, I now must die.

God says YOU LIVE and KEEP YOUR BROTHER.

"Where is your brother?" God asks you.

"I don't know," we say. "I'm not responsible for my brothers."

"What have you done? I can hear the blood of your brother telling me how you harmed him. Do you know what will happen now that you don't have a brother any more since you killed him? You will be a stranger and a wanderer on this earth!"

"That is too terrible of a consequence! I can't live through that! Others are going to kill me now, too."

"I will mark you so that everyone will remember not to kill you, their brother."

We are the murderers who choose to break the bonds of brotherhood in mankind. We are the ones dead in the ground with our blood crying out to be heard.

We are each other.

And we are marked by God so that we might live. God has his sign upon us, so every time you meet any face on this planet, look on that face, and see if you can see the mark of God. You will see it in everyone. Let them live, then.

Keep your brother."

[Maidservant]

After reading half way through your phenomenal blog posts, I would also mention that the word Zeptah is the same word as Egyptus. They are not different words.

zept = (e)gypt

ah = us

especially if you take the "z" as a "zh" (same sound as a soft "g" in Egyptus)

Zeptah

Zheptah

Gyptah

Egyptah

Egyptus

[PoisonWell]

I'm interested to read this (although admittedly I think I'll wait for this simplified part 3, to see if all the rest is worth going through), however I think this quote:

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Is damning in and of itself. I don't believe God would allow His prophets to lead His flock away from the truth like this, and this clearly states that I have no reason to doubt that Brigham was doing exactly that. I don't see how any other context can change this.

[David T]

Part 2a - Nephi and the Skin of Blackness

"Forget all you know ... or think you know." High Aldwin, Willow (1988)

[KevinG]

Reminder - if you want prophetic inerrancy go talk to the Catholics (and even not so much them anymore).