Need Help With Uninformed Black African Member

[rockpond]

Which will require a revelation to do so as the farther we get from that time period, the less prone imo will prophets and leaders be to dismiss what was taught (the ban...not anything else which I feel is in a different category than the ban) on such a major scale based on their own opinions drawn from tradition and reason.

I don't know... Didn't they already dismiss what was taught? I'm always confused at how to take statements from church spokespeople who are not members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. That said, Brother Purdy seemed pretty clear in the church's official response to BYU Professor Randy Bott's Washington Post interview back in 2012.

If you recall, Brother Bott had (in that interview) put forward some of the previous teachings of the Brethren regarding the priesthood/temple ban.

From this article:

"For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent," Purdy said. "It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."

Purdy referred specifically to the positions attributed to Bott in the Post article and said those positions "absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I think Bott was doing his best in that WP interview but I guess he didn't see or didn't recall the PBS show from 2006. From the same article linked above:

"Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve in a March 2006 interview with Helen Whitney of PBS. During the interview, Elder Holland referred to speculations — including those by early church leaders — about the reasons why blacks could not hold the LDS priesthood for a period of time as "folklore" that "must never be perpetuated."

"All I can say is, however well-intentioned the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong," Elder Holland said. "It 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 ... We simply don't know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

[rockpond]

Yes it does: ...and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.

Again, OD2 does not speak to the denial of the priesthood nor temple blessings to those of African descent. It simply acknowledges the "faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld". Remember, from the OP, we were discussing how this young man preparing for a mission could possibly *not* know about the ban when it is in our scripture. But it's actually NOT in our scripture.

Why would it be desirable, let alone necessary, to address any/every false idea that some may have had?

You mean the false ideas put forward by prophets, seers, and revelators for over a century? Maybe they could have been generally addressed so that 34 years later (as noted in my previous post, #101) we weren't still trying to deny them publicly.

Edited June 18, 2013 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

Again, OD2 does not speak to the denial of the priesthood nor temple blessings to those of African descent. It simply acknowledges the "faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld". Remember, from the OP, we were discussing how this young man preparing for a mission could possibly *not* know about the ban when it is in our scripture. But it's actually NOT in our scripture.

You mean the false ideas put forward by prophets, seers, and revelators for over a century? Maybe they could have been generally addressed so that 34 years later (as noted in my previous post, #101) we weren't still trying to deny them publicly.

Yes it is in our Scriptures. Curse of Cain and all that rot.

Since when to be we believe in the infallibility of prophets, seers, and revelators?

[rockpond]

Yes it is in our Scriptures. Curse of Cain and all that rot.

But the curse of Cain is not why those of African descent were denied the priesthood and temple ordinances.

Since when to be we believe in the infallibility of prophets, seers, and revelators?

I believe. But we probably won't get to critical mass within the general church membership as long as we keep putting forward ideas like this:

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

Edited June 18, 2013 by rockpond

[BlueDreams]

I don't know... Didn't they already dismiss what was taught? I'm always confused at how to take statements from church spokespeople who are not members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. That said, Brother Purdy seemed pretty clear in the church's official response to BYU Professor Randy Bott's Washington Post interview back in 2012.

If you recall, Brother Bott had (in that interview) put forward some of the previous teachings of the Brethren regarding the priesthood/temple ban.

Cal made it pretty clear that she was talking specifically about the ban itself, not its multitude of tangential ideas/beliefs that surround it. The statement you quote are about the tangential ideas. Bott put forth his own set of ideas mixed with common ideas from the past to make his own funky belief about it.

With luv,

BD

[rockpond]

Cal made it pretty clear that she was talking specifically about the ban itself, not its multitude of tangential ideas/beliefs that surround it. The statement you quote are about the tangential ideas. Bott put forth his own set of ideas mixed with common ideas from the past to make his own funky belief about it.

With luv,

BD

I just went back and re-read Calmoriah's post. My apologies for misunderstanding.

[thesometimesaint]

But the curse of Cain is not why those of African descent were denied the priesthood and temple ordinances.

I believe. But we probably won't get to critical mass within the general church membership as long as we keep putting forward ideas like this:

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

The curse was the lack of Priesthood, the sign of the curse was a darkened skin. Those verses are in Scripture. Admittedly some of the rationalizations for excluding blacks are a bunch of hooey.

I would hate to see that day when any mortal is proclaimed to be infallible. No more need for personal revelation from God.

[rockpond]

The curse was the lack of Priesthood, the sign of the curse was a darkened skin. Those verses are in Scripture.

But the Brethren have now denied that as the reason that those of African descent were denied the priesthood & temple ordinances in this dispensation. The official teaching is "we don't know why".

So again, the priesthood/temple ban in this dispensation is not explained in our scriptures.

[Kevin Christensen]

The review by Stirling Adams gives the widespread cultural misreading of the story of Ham, which obviously colored LDS thought on the topic. Nibley here gives a close reading of the Book of Abraham account, which gives a very different story, when read closely:

Answer: Verses 21 through 25 in Abraham 1 must be read carefully to get straight a number of specific propositions:

1. Egypt is the "Chaldean" name for the land: "Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt" (Abraham 1:23). Here the Book of Abraham is right: Egypt is not the Egyptian name for the land,⁴⁰⁸ but was first applied to it by the Canaanites ("in the Chaldean"), making its first known appearance in Ugaritic as Ḥkpt, that being an adaptation of the old Egyptian name for Memphis, Ḥw.t-kɜ-ptḥ, which the Egyptians did not apply to the land as a whole, but only to the city.⁴⁰⁹ It was the "Chaldeans" who gave it to the land. Such is the prevailing, but by no means only, explanation of the name among scholars.

2. The Egyptians, like Pharaoh himself, were of mixed stock, being partakers "of the blood of the Canaanites" (Abraham 1:21—22). Unhindered by natural boundaries, the Canaanites at all times filtered into Egypt by the oldest road in the world, presenting a recurrent menace throughout all her [Egypt's] history, according to Gardiner.⁴¹⁰ The Delta that attracted them was like the garden of the Lord, offering tempting grazing and farming lands from the earliest times. Examination of skulls from Canaan shows "an array of cranial characteristics surprisingly similar to those of ancient Egypt."⁴¹¹

Question: Who were the Canaanites?

Answer: "The title 'Canaanites,' if it be used at all, must be reserved for the third-millennium Semitic inhabitants of Syria-Palestine and their second-millennium descendants."⁴¹²

3. There has been a great deal of hair-splitting on the subject of Egypt and Canaan, but one sure thing is that Canaanite blood was shared one way or another by almost every pharaoh whose line can be traced:⁴¹³ "Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham" (Abraham 1:25) "and Egyptus" (Abraham 1:23). The name Egypt is a title, as was Pharaoh ("which . . . signifies king by royal blood"—Abraham 1:20), and was given to the land, just as the title of Pharaoh (like that of Caesar) was given to all who ruled after him. As in the Old Testament, "father" can mean ancestor, or "son" or "daughter" can mean "descendant";⁴¹⁴ this is clear from Abraham 1:26, where Noah is called Pharaoh's father.

4. Pharaoh's claim to the priesthood was invalid, because he insisted with great force that it was the patriarchal priesthood of Noah, received through the line of Ham (Abraham 1:25—27). His earthly rule was blessed (Abraham 1:26), but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother. There is an interesting parallel here with the case of Job, who, according to a newly found Testament of Job, though the most righteous of men and a direct descendant of Jacob or Israel, cannot claim a place among the patriarchs of the line because it is through his mother that he relates to Jacob, while his father's line, through Esau, was invalid because Esau had forfeited the priesthood.⁴¹⁵ Pharoah finds himself in exactly that situation: The male line of Ham had become rebellious, while the female line was not patriarchal.

Question: But Ham was a righteous man and, like his father Noah, even "walked with God" (Moses 8:27).

Answer: The tradition was widespread and persistent among the ancient Jews that the royal and priestly succession of Ham was made void through the transgression of his male descendants, Cainan, Cush, Nimrod, all of whom broke the covenant and forfeited the priesthood by laying unworthy claims to it. Some accounts say it was Ham himself who sinned (the story of the stolen garment); some say it was Cush, some Ham's younger son Canaan, some Nimrod (this is the commonest); but all agreed that something went wrong that broke the line.⁴¹⁶

Question: But why the curse on the land? (Abraham 1:24).

Answer: It means, exactly as in the Book of Mormon, that those who dwell in the land will be cursed if they do not follow God's counsels and blessed if they do.⁴¹⁷ As Noah was apportioning out the lands, according to the book of Jubilees, he pronounced a curse on any of his descendants who should defile the land given him by God through iniquity;⁴¹⁸ most explicitly he warned Canaan—a bull's-eye for Abraham (Abraham 1:21—24). This is the standard curse on any promised land (Alma 37:28, etc). There is one element of the Old World curse, however, that we should mention. In the traditions of Ham, Canaan, and Cain, which are connected in various ways, there is constant reference to sexual promiscuity, which definitely has something to do with the curse. Thus we are told that Nimrod slew his father Canaan and married his mother Sachlas, thus launching his rule on a matriarchal footing and introducing that fatal triangle which is the abomination of the ancients. "The seed of Noah," says a recently found source, "followed after the sons of Sachlas, going against the will of Noah in their pride, and so perverted the whole population."⁴¹⁹ Another recent discovery tells us that Satan himself rested his claim on a matriarchal line, as do his followers, "Canaan and Cain, who is also Re (the Sun)."⁴²⁰ This surprising equating of the Hebrew Cain to the Egyptian Re in a writing attributed to John points to some very old traditions. Whether or not the story of "Re and the Sun's Eye" is of Canaanite origin, as Cyrus Gordon maintains,⁴²¹ the Egyptian story of Astarte establishes definite connections and seems to go back even to distant Hurrian and Hittite flood legends.⁴²² In Abraham 1:21—27 we certainly see something of that confusion that results from the mingling of patriarchal and matriarchal claims that left the pharaohs forever in doubt as to just where they stood on authority.

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days,

seeking earnestly to imitate

that order established by

the fathers

in the first generations [the

pawt

], in the days of the first

patriarchal

reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his

father

, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but

cursed

him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that

lineage

by which he

could not

have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs

would fain claim it

from Noah, through Ham (Abraham 1:26—27).

Question: Why could they not have it?

Answer: Because, as noted, it came through a matriarchal succession, the first pharaoh being "the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal" (Abraham 1:25). Pharaoh was of a more righteous line than the sons of Ham, but daughters do not transmit patriarchal succession. In all of this, please note, there is no word of race or color, though that has been the main point of attack on the Book of Abraham by the enemies of the Prophet.

See http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=48&chapid=295

Nibley also talks about the story of the marriage of Joseph and Asenath, daughter of the Egyptian priest of On (aka Heliopolis).

Also for a deeper probe into the original readings of the Ham story, to compare with the kind of things that come up the Adams review in BYU Studies, see:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=48&chapid=296

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[BlueDreams]

The curse was the lack of Priesthood, the sign of the curse was a darkened skin. Those verses are in Scripture. Admittedly some of the rationalizations for excluding blacks are a bunch of hooey.

I would hate to see that day when any mortal is proclaimed to be infallible. No more need for personal revelation from God.

I don't have time to look it up and read it all over again and pull out referencing and what not....I'm very much procrastinating a paper I'm supposed to be writing at the moment. But I've read Abr a number of times only to see that the linking is literally not there. You have to initially start with the belief about the mark of cain (specifically, it's connection to race) and what not pre-conceived to see it in the scriptures. Reading it raw does not give that.

With luv,

BD

Edited June 18, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

I don't know... Didn't they already dismiss what was taught?

But if you go back and study what was taught, you will find it is very inconsistent over time and individuals. The ban itself once established was very consistent and persistent while the explanations changed over time and some fell out of favour and others became popular, etc.

[Calm]

The curse was the lack of Priesthood, the sign of the curse was a darkened skin. Those verses are in Scripture. Admittedly some of the rationalizations for excluding blacks are a bunch of hooey.

CFR please from the scriptures only.

[thesometimesaint]

But the Brethren have now denied that as the reason that those of African descent were denied the priesthood & temple ordinances in this dispensation. The official teaching is "we don't know why".

So again, the priesthood/temple ban in this dispensation is not explained in our scriptures.

We don't know the reason(s) for any of the bans. There was/is plenty of speculations as to the reason(s). Only that the bans are in the Scriptures. God for his own reasons instituted them, and then for his own reasons lifted them. Who knows maybe someday God will tell us the reason, but so far he hasn't.

[why me]

I wonder how many Southern Baptists would be disturbed if they found out about the history of their church relative to slavery. Perhaps someone should make a movie about this.

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=112329862

I don't think that many would be disturbed. Not because they are racist but rather because they most likely understand that human beings are fallible. The present day policy would trump the past. When the baptists offered an apology it did not change what was done to the blacks by the church. The baptist church was cruel. And yet, there are many african american members of that church.

Unforunately, mormons are not allowed to ever move on. The critics make sure of this. Since the critics cannot critique the modern church except around how past history is portrayed, they seem to harp on it over and over again.

[why me]

My testimony was one of absolute conviction and certainty up to 'discover something on the internet.' It's a little wearing to hear people persistently suggest that a faith crisis only happens to people with "weak lds testimonies."

Here is what I think about it: people who are lds experience the spirit and receive spiritual experiences which as members they are grateful for and bless by. They often say so in class and in testimony meetings. However, just how strong are these testimonies? Maybe not very. When such a member discovers something on the internet it all comes tumbling down like a house of cards. Thus, my statement that lds testimonies are weak in general.

And this is what I find amazing. I think that there is much to learn from the witnesses to the book of mormon. Regardless if they left the church, they retained their testimony of the book of mormon. They had the sense to separate the people from their experience. And it mattered not what they eventually thought of Joseph Smith, they still knew that they had a special spiritual experience with the book.

Modern day members seem to forget their spiritual experiences rather easily. This has been my experience since I came on the boards to discuss the church years ago.

Edited June 18, 2013 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

To paraphrase JS. If they demand perfection of my past. I'll demand perfection of theirs.

[why me]

And for "why me". Personally (not that my opinion matters or carries any weight). I believe the healing needed will only come when the church leaders, just as they did with Adam-God, acknowledge it as false doctrine, a mistaken policy and express deep remorse for all the pain to generations of black Africans felt due to the false policy. Isn't that the method taught when seeking forgiveness?

Would it really matter? The critics would still bring it up and try to make hay out of it. And in the scheme of things an apology would not go very far. But here is what I know. Blacks were welcome as members. When they joined they were treated well by the members. They were respected. And yes, the members felt sorry for their lack of status. I am writing in general terms.

This is what I remember and yet, the critics never address this. And mormons were far less prejudice than the general catholic or protestant. For after all, mormons consider africans brothers and sisters of our heavenly father. And acted as such.

[cinepro]

To paraphrase JS. If they demand perfection of my past. I'll demand perfection of theirs.

Were those people asking Joseph Smith to accept them as Prophets, and the sole conveyors of God's true doctrine in their time?

Because I would definitely expect him to hold them to a higher standard if they were doing that.

Edited June 18, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

CFR please from the scriptures only.

Kevin Christensen has posted Nibley's take on these verses, but I'll post them here because the "plain" reading was used to give scriptural support for the priesthood ban for many years:

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

The Book of Abraham

(emphasis added)

FWIW, the "plain" reading and its relationship to the latter-day priesthood ban is upheld by the current institute manual for the Pearl of Great Price:

Abraham 1:24–27. The Pharaoh and the Priesthood

At times in the past, the power and authority to act in the name of the Lord was bestowed upon only a few worthy males and withheld from all others. In the days of Moses’ leadership of the children of Israel, for example, only the tribe of Levi had the privilege to hold the priesthood (see Numbers 8:5–26). Our day is the “long-promised day … when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.” On 8 June 1978, the First Presidency announced: (OD2 is then quoted in full)

Edited June 18, 2013 by cinepro

[rockpond]

But if you go back and study what was taught, you will find it is very inconsistent over time and individuals. The ban itself once established was very consistent and persistent while the explanations changed over time and some fell out of favour and others became popular, etc.

Agreed.

[rockpond]

The curse was the lack of Priesthood, the sign of the curse was a darkened skin. Those verses are in Scripture. Admittedly some of the rationalizations for excluding blacks are a bunch of hooey.

According to Brethren, all of the rationalizations for excluding those of African descent are "hooey". The official answer is that we don't know why the ban was in place.

[omni]

Dup

Edited June 18, 2013 by omni

[rockpond]

We don't know the reason(s) for any of the bans. There was/is plenty of speculations as to the reason(s). Only that the bans are in the Scriptures. God for his own reasons instituted them, and then for his own reasons lifted them. Who knows maybe someday God will tell us the reason, but so far he hasn't.

The ban in this dispensation is not in the scriptures with the exception of its termination in OD2.

We have no record of God instituting the ban in this dispensation.

Who knows... maybe someday God will tell us that He had nothing to do with the ban and that one of the things we're here to work on is getting over personal prejudices.

[rockpond]

Here is what I think about it: people who are lds experience the spirit and receive spiritual experiences which as members they are grateful for and bless by. They often say so in class and in testimony meetings. However, just how strong are these testimonies? Maybe not very. When such a member discovers something on the internet it all comes tumbling down like a house of cards. Thus, my statement that lds testimonies are weak in general.

And this is what I find amazing. I think that there is much to learn from the witnesses to the book of mormon. Regardless if they left the church, they retained their testimony of the book of mormon. They had the sense to separate the people from their experience. And it mattered not what they eventually thought of Joseph Smith, they still knew that they had a special spiritual experience with the book.

Modern day members seem to forget their spiritual experiences rather easily. This has been my experience since I came on the boards to discuss the church years ago.

Just as with the witnesses, some members who leave the church because of "something they found on the internet" don't lose their faith & testimony of everything.

[rockpond]

Would it really matter? The critics would still bring it up and try to make hay out of it. And in the scheme of things an apology would not go very far. But here is what I know. Blacks were welcome as members. When they joined they were treated well by the members. They were respected. And yes, the members felt sorry for their lack of status. I am writing in general terms.

This is what I remember and yet, the critics never address this. And mormons were far less prejudice than the general catholic or protestant. For after all, mormons consider africans brothers and sisters of our heavenly father. And acted as such.

Teaching that they were less valiant in the pre-existence isn't really "treating them well". IMO.

But I agree that things improved toward the end of the ban.