Need Help With Uninformed Black African Member

[omni]

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:

See http://maxwellinstit...d=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://maxwellinstit...d=48&chapid=296

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, don't you hold our prophets to a higher standard? I don't beleive they were any more racist than the average person of their day, but that's not an excuse. We our constantly told "we are in the world, but not of it" and that "God's ways aren't man's ways" when justifying the no hair, one ear ring, or no sleeveless shirts policies. When the world losens its sexual morals we are told the Lord instructs the prophets, his mouthpiece's to guide the church, but when it comes to racism he is silent for well over 100 years. I just don't understand your reasoning here.

[omni]

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?

So if we can't necaessarily take what's in the scriptures or what's been taught by multiple prophets over long periods of time as official doctrine, then what can we?

[Calm]

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:

And Pharaoh being of dark skin? And it being the Curse of Cain?

CFR still stands for TSS

Edited June 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So if we can't necaessarily take what's in the scriptures or what's been taught by multiple prophets over long periods of time as official doctrine, then what can we?

Oh boy. I guess I will leave the church now. Because we might as well throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Calm]

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.

If it was impossible for a strong testimony to fail, there would be no sons of perdition.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, don't you hold our prophets to a higher standard? I don't beleive they were any more racist than the average person of their day, but that's not an excuse. We our constantly told "we are in the world, but not of it" and that "God's ways aren't man's ways" when justifying the no hair, one ear ring, or no sleeveless shirts policies. When the world losens its sexual morals we are told the Lord instructs the prophets, his mouthpiece's to guide the church, but when it comes to racism he is silent for well over 100 years. I just don't understand your reasoning here.

I hold our prophets to a relevant standard. Have you seen my long essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets?

http://en.fairmormon..._False_Prophets

I have never seen anyone else do anything this comprehensive. Not even close. So I think I have a pretty good idea of how to go about recognizing a prophet when I see one.

I also studied the reasons Biblical peoples gave for rejecting prophets and came up with around 70 distinct arguments. But those all boil down to people saying, "It's not what I think," or "It's not what I want." That is, not what I fear (that is, respect, and feel bound to as correct), or not what I desire. Surprisingly, these are just the things that came along to tempt the Buddha unto the Bo tree. Fear and Desire are the obstacles that everyone must pass to enter the Real. It's one thing to ask whether Joseph Smith's inspiration or that of his successors, is Real. Quite a different thing to ask whether they tell me only what I want or expect to hear. It's a very different thing to ask for Perfection than to ask for Reality. Different to ask for the Ideal than to confront the Real.

One of the Realities of prophet-hood, I observe, is that revelation is conditioned on two things. Expedience (on God's side), and Inquiry on ours. If both conditions are met, we get revelation.

If people suppose they know already (say the Old World disciples referred to in 3 Nephi who already knew about "other sheep", didn't ask, and didn't learn), adopting cinepro's preference for unquestioning leaning on "plain meanings" and common opinion, traditional thinking, what one hears only through approved official channels, with a bureaucratic seal of approval, they tend to get what they have paid for. Law of the Harvest, being what it is.

I was a teenager during the 60s when the ban got extremely uncomfortable, as Civil rights and discontent grew, and questions were being asked more and more. And I was in Salt Lake City in 1978 when I got the news about the Revelation. My wife-to-be said she heard something on the radio, and I went and grabbed a newspaper and read it. And while I was reading, I heard car horns honking all over the city in spontaneous celebration. President Kimble asked. Long before Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel. Walker Lewis was ordained. Culture pushed back because people supposed they already understood, based on deeply ingrained cultural assumptions and did not have to ask. You have to remember that in 1828, even before the Book of Mormon was published, Alexander Campbell Sr. could refer to Noah's Curse on Ham as proof of the existence of God based on the existence of slaves in the US. So, the LDS ban was put in place a policy with no revelation based on some odd goings on in Winter Quarters, as interpreted through the eyes of a culture that still managed to rationalize slavery on a huge scale. Out West, the pressure to ask questions on the topic was superceded by issues of physical survival, and then cultural survival as the US declared war on polygamy, and then accommodation and retrenchment, a few World Wars and a depression. Then obvious questions got asked, and as they got asked enough, the answer given, and received with joy.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 18, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[why me]

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:

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:

But we do have a problem. Since Joseph permitted the ordination of africans, it would be obvious that the verses in the book of abraham were not the source for the ban. Also, for the critics, the book of abraham was most likely written by joseph smith. And since he would have written those verses (according to the critics) and allowed blacks to be ordained, it should be obvious that these verses could not have represented the ban. But they could be used as an excuse by leaders after Joseph was murdered.

[rockpond]

I hold our prophets to a relevant standard. Have you seen my long essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets?

http://en.fairmormon..._False_Prophets

I have never seen anyone else do anything this comprehensive. Not even close. So I think I have a pretty good idea of how to go about recognizing a prophet when I see one.

I also studied the reasons Biblical peoples gave for rejecting prophets and came up with around 70 distinct arguments. But those all boil down to people saying, "It's not what I think," or "It's not what I want." That is, not what I fear (that is, respect, and feel bound to as correct), or not what I desire. Surprisingly, these are just the things that came along to tempt the Buddha unto the Bo tree. Fear and Desire are the obstacles that everyone must pass to enter the Real. It's one thing to ask whether Joseph Smith's inspiration or that of his successors, is Real. Quite a different thing to ask whether they tell me only what I want or expect to hear. It's a very different thing to ask for Perfection than to ask for Reality. Different to ask for the Ideal than to confront the Real.

One of the Realities of prophet-hood, I observe, is that revelation is conditioned on two things. Expedience (on God's side), and Inquiry on ours. If both conditions are met, we get revelation.

If people suppose they know already (say the Old World disciples referred to in 3 Nephi who already knew about "other sheep", didn't ask, and didn't learn), adopting cinepro's preference for unquestioning leaning on "plain meanings" and common opinion, traditional thinking, what one hears only through approved official channels, with a bureaucratic seal of approval, they tend to get what they have paid for. Law of the Harvest, being what it is.

I was a teenager during the 60s when the ban got extremely uncomfortable, as Civil rights and discontent grew, and questions were being asked more and more. And I was in Salt Lake City in 1978 when I got the news about the Revelation. My wife-to-be said she heard something on the radio, and I went and grabbed a newspaper and read it. And while I was reading, I heard car horns honking all over the city in spontaneous celebration. President Kimble asked. Long before Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel. Walker Lewis was ordained. Culture pushed back because people supposed they already understood, based on deeply ingrained cultural assumptions and did not have to ask. You have to remember that in 1828, even before the Book of Mormon was published, Alexander Campbell Sr. could refer to Noah's Curse on Ham as proof of the existence of God based on the existence of slaves in the US. So, the LDS ban was put in place a policy with no revelation based on some odd goings on in Winter Quarters, as interpreted through the eyes of a culture that still managed to rationalize slavery on a huge scale. Out West, the pressure to ask questions on the topic was superceded by issues of physical survival, and then cultural survival as the US declared war on polygamy, and then accommodation and retrenchment, a few World Wars and a depression. Then obvious questions got asked, and as they got asked enough, the answer given, and received with joy.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I think your last paragraph there is a great overview & explanation!

Do you happen to have a copy of your article on Prophets in a form that is all in one doc? I love to spend quality time with these types of articles by putting them on my kindle... can't do that with the sections in different links. But, if you don't have it readily available, I'll just read it online. Thanks.

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

I agree that this is the official answer today..,but from 1845-1978 the official answer was something quite different...and learning that official answer is what has concerned the young man in question to the point that he may not serve a mission

[The Nehor]

I agree that this is the official answer today..,but from 1845-1978 the official answer was something quite different...and learning that official answer is what has concerned the young man in question to the point that he may not serve a mission

Assuming this "uninformed black african" is not a product of your deranged imagination of course.....created in a transparent attempt to make us worry while appearing to be an innocent helper.

Cue feigned hurt in 3....2....1.....

[rockpond]

I agree that this is the official answer today..,but from 1845-1978 the official answer was something quite different...and learning that official answer is what has concerned the young man in question to the point that he may not serve a mission

I agree. And, what was taught prior to 1978 is one of a number of things that forced me to deconstruct and rebuild my testimony. Today I no longer have a testimony of "the church". I have a testimony of Christ. I believe that this nebulous thing we call "the church" is our best attempts approximate ourselves to him. Occasionally we stumble, but most of the time it is beautiful and wonderful and faith affirming.

[rockpond]

Assuming this "uninformed black african" is not a product of your deranged imagination of course.....created in a transparent attempt to make us worry while appearing to be an innocent helper.

Cue feigned hurt in 3....2....1.....

Sorry. Deleted.

Edited June 18, 2013 by rockpond

[Hestia]

Cue feigned hurt in 3....2....1.....

Nehor, cut the sniping and accusations.

[The Nehor]

Nehor, cut the sniping and accusations.

Awwwwwww......

But that is all I am good at. Well that and pushing old ladies down the stairs but now everyone keeps going on about how "illegal" that is every time I do it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree that this is the official answer today..,but from 1845-1978 the official answer was something quite different...and learning that official answer is what has concerned the young man in question to the point that he may not serve a mission

You know as you learn more, can that learning not trump what was previously assumed? I am talking generally for now.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think your last paragraph there is a great overview & explanation!

Do you happen to have a copy of your article on Prophets in a form that is all in one doc? I love to spend quality time with these types of articles by putting them on my kindle... can't do that with the sections in different links. But, if you don't have it readily available, I'll just read it online. Thanks.

Thanks.

FAIR used to have a pdf of my Biblical keys essay on their site, but they're moving towards the Wiki. However, I still have a pdf. You could message me with your Kindle email, and I could send the pdf that way.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Johnnie Cake]

Assuming this "uninformed black african" is not a product of your deranged imagination of course.....created in a transparent attempt to make us worry while appearing to be an innocent helper.

Cue feigned hurt in 3....2....1.....

Well. Were I to do that... That would make me a complete fraud...yes frauds make up things declare them to be the truth and pass them along to others as truth. While I could care less what your personal assessment of me might be ... I assure you I am no fraud

[Johnnie Cake]

Duplicate post

Edited June 19, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

Well. Were I to do that... That would make me a complete fraud...yes frauds make up things declare them to be the truth and pass them along to others as truth. While I could care less what your personal assessment of me might be ... I assure you I am no fraud

Your assurance has put all my doubts to rest.

[canard78]

This timeline neglects the larger culture which, IMHO, is essential for understanding what happened and why, and where these notions came from. That is why I typically cite this essay on the history of the interpretation of Noah's Curse:

https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=7674

It should be recognized that the attitudes did not originate in Mormon culture, but arose long before as part of a cultural mythos that was invented to rationalize and perpetuate the slave trade. Treating the issue as though Mormon thinkers invented it, or got it from revelation, leads to misunderstanding.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

The article cited is very interesting, thanks for sharing it.

It makes it very clear why and how people of the 19th & 20th C justified racism. It does very little to justify how prophets would initiate and perpetuate a practice based on prejudice and ignorance.

Some key highlights:

In sum, in regard to Noah’s curse, four factors were at play during the first six or seven centuries of the Common Era: explanation—an attempt to make sense of the Bible; error—a mistaken recollection of the biblical text [that Ham was cursed]; environment—a social structure in which the Black had become identified as slave; and etymology—a mistaken assumption that Ham meant “black, dark.” The combination of these factors was lethal: Ham, the [assumed] father of the black African, was cursed with eternal slavery. The Curse of Ham was born. (167)

...

The curse was born but still had not gained currency among Christians. It first appeared in the Christian West in the fifteenth century as Europe discovered Africa and started to trade slaves. Then, “as the Black slave trade moved to England and then America, the Curse of Ham moved with it” (175).

...

(Into the 19th & 20th C)... the Mormon community was influenced by some of the same historical events and interpretative trends as Southern Christians.

...

Bruce R. McConkie... went on to preach that, in a broad sense, caste systems and racial segregation originated in the gospel (particularly in regard to marriage), and that blacks are spiritually and physically inferior to the original race of Adam and Eve.

The priesthood ban was never the right thing to do in the first place. Slavery and racism was never, is never acceptable. It was based on scripture distorted to meet people's bias or bigotry... Unfortunately even among people who we are taught will never lead us astray. That's the sad reality. Ordained prophets and apostles were lead astray by the teachings of men and lead an entire church astray in the process for over 120 years.

As the article states:

...in the story of Noah’s curse, “for the first time in biblical history, God remains curiously silent in the midst of human ‘sin’” (204). As such, Haynes suggests readers should not, as has been typical, assume Noah’s statement was divinely sanctioned.

Like Noah's treatment of Ham/Canaan (who can't even be established as the father or the Negro race), modern day prophets have made countless statements that we should not assume were "divinely sanctioned."

If multiple generations of church leaders were able to perpetuate this error, why should I trust them to be leaders on other issues.

"Follow the prophet, don't go astray" - except for when they are demonstrably wrong.

Some may point to prophets praying for decades to get an answer. Unfortunately there were members of the quorum, right up into the 1950s and 60s who retained racist attitudes and who were not asking for a solution and were instead happy to sit and wait for an answer to be sent. They wanted to be spoon-fed a solution to a problem of the church's own making.

Some may also say, the church couldn't swim against the tide or, as the article says, that "The church was in its infancy: weak, disliked, and ridiculed. It was in no position to affect American thought."

I have no interest in a church that can or can't influence American thought. I'm interested in leaders who do what is right and let the consequences follow.

I don't want church leaders to follow social trends. I want them to break or set them.

If the church tomorrow endorses same-sex marriage, accepts moderate use of pornography, alcohol, coffee and pot (for medicinal purposes), relaxes attitudes to sex before marriage, R-rated films etc etc, they would all be a within the bounds of some people's social norms and acceptability (to varying degrees). But to do so may or may not be God's will. So why do sit and justify racism just because the prophets were raised in an environment of racism? The point is, they are called to reveal God's will, not support the philosophies of men.

[Kevin Christensen]

LIke I keep saying, "It's a very different thing to ask for Perfection than to ask for Reality. Different to ask for the Ideal than to confront the Real." Entirely different sets of information answer the questions asked, which follows because the questions themselves are different.

It's easy to say that a prophet would not be a racist, ignoring the implications of Acts 10. The point of my citing Adams' essay on the two studies of Noah's Curse was to point out that it was a Biblical justification of slavery, mistaken to be sure, but understood as such. Those LDS who came up with the ban in the mid 1840s at Winter Quarters, and who sustained it even after the civil rights movement brought some long-delayed scrutiny, all thought that they were doing God's will, and expressly NOT supporting the philosophies of men. Like it or not, that is what they honestly thought. Bush's historical essay makes that extremely clear.

Speaking to a group of particularly righteous people, in 3 Nephi the savior said, "I perceive that ye are weak, and that ye cannot understand all my words, which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you at this time. Therefore go ye into your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow..." (3 Nephi 17:2-3)

Earlier, in 3 Nephi 15:18 refers to Old World "stiffneckedness and unbelief" as being why some disciples "understood not my word;" leading to the Lord saying "no more" on that topic.

Prophets, it seems, are not divine sock puppets, instantly plugged in and transformed into God's thoughts, will, and deeds. This may be disappointing. It may fall short of an Ideal of Perfection, assuming of course, that one has the inner perfection to be able to infallibly recognize perfection when it appears, that one has no motes in one's own eyes, and is a reliable judge of problems elsewhere, whose scalpel always leads to clearer vision, and never to blindness. (It might help to be reminded that we are to be judged as we judge.) But it happens that Kuhn points out that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation provided by the paradigm. The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicated it provides of anomaly, and hence, of occasion for paradigm change."

An inevitable consequence of demanding perfection now is to make imperfection, and only that, decisive. Evidence of inspiration cannot demonstrate perfection. Perfection cannot be verified easily, but it can be falsified with the greatest of ease. Any imperfection, indeed, any perceived imperfection will do.

What do I expect? A good question? What should I expect? A better one, as it demands that I look to my own weakness in understanding. What do I expect of latter-day prophets? Perfection? What I want, that is, my own Ideal imaginings? No. Inspiration. Yes. And mistakes.

D&C 1 sets my expectations not towards the Ideal, nor the Perfect, but to the real. "Inasmuch as they erred, it might be made made known; inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed.. inasmuch as they were humble, they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

For me that is enough. A process that leads us in the right direction, with corrections coming when expedient, and when sought.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 19, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[The Nehor]

I take great comfort in the fallibility of prophets, both modern and ancient. It gives me hope for myself as I am being judged by the same standard.

Those who demand perfection from prophets should take the words of the Savior about being judged by the standards you use to judge others more literally.

[why me]

If the church tomorrow endorses same-sex marriage, accepts moderate use of pornography, alcohol, coffee and pot (for medicinal purposes), relaxes attitudes to sex before marriage, R-rated films etc etc, they would all be a within the bounds of some people's social norms and acceptability (to varying degrees). But to do so may or may not be God's will. So why do sit and justify racism just because the prophets were raised in an environment of racism? The point is, they are called to reveal God's will, not support the philosophies of men.

Do you think that biblical prophets were not prejudice? Do you believe that they weren't products of their time? If I remember correctly the old testament is full of prejudice against the people who were not the chosen people:

I would have thought the Bible of all books would be about love and peace for the whole world. I would never expected quotes from God or Jesus claiming only some ethnic groups were saved or that some were superior to others. But that is exactly what I found.

First of all there is the constant claim that Jews are the “chosen people”. Now surely a history of the Jews should teach a strong lesson of the dangers of declaring one group of people superior to all others. It always ends in trouble. Just ask the Germans.

The Bible seems to have one rule for the Israelites and one rule for everyone else. If you don’t see what’s wrong with this remember that America had one-rule-for-us-another-rule-for-you laws. It was called Jim Crow.

Before anyone says the Bible wasn’t racist because he wasn’t based on skin colour note that the United Nations defines racism as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”. So treating people different because they are from a different tribe or ethnic group is racist.

In Deuteronomy chapter 7 the God tells the Israelites that there are other ethnic groups living in the promised land. Does God tell them to live in peace and harmony with them, with everyone respecting each others’ differences? No he tells them “to smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.” (This isn’t the only time the Israelites exterminated others, see here) God commands the Israelites to exterminate another people, not for any crime but merely because they are a different ethnic group with a different religion. This exceeds even the Ku Klux Klan level of racism.

Chapter 25 of the book of Numbers (verses 1-13) tells of when the Israelis began to inter-marry (it uses the term “commit whoredom”) with the Moabites, a neighbouring ethnic group with a different religion. This provoked the rage of God who commanded Moses to “hang them”. One man had married a “Midianitish”. An Israeli, Phinehas killed both of them with a javelin. God praises him for this and declares he “hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel.” He then rewards him with a “covenant of peace” and the covenant of everlasting priesthood.” Moral of the story, God doesn’t want you to mix with people other you’re own.

Mixed marriages are denounced again. When Nehemiah was governor he found that Jews had inter-married with other ethnic groups. He “cursed them, and smote certain of them” for committing “this great evil”. He concludes with a malicious vague sentence Thus “cleansed I them from all strangers”. (Nehemiah 13:23-30) The exact form of this ethnic cleansing is not described. Yet this is included (without criticism) in the Christian holy book and we are supposed to worship and live our lives according to it.

Far from being open to all people, non-Israelis were actually banned from joining the religion. “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever;” (Deuteronomy 23:3) So even if an extremely distant ancestor was from a neighbouring ethnic group, you could not become a Jew. Only pure Israelis could join.

The book of Nehemiah (chapter 13) records that when people were told of this law, “they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.” (Nehemiah 13:3) So here we have an ancient version of ethnic cleansing.

http://robertnielsen...-part-5-racism/

Now is this all true? And were prophets responsible for such racism? Are the words above just the opinion of a blogger? Does he have a point? You can decide. But it does seem that much was going on back then. And i would have a hard time not believing that even Paul may have some prejudice against the pagans found in Rome and Greece.

Edited June 19, 2013 by why me

[why me]

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

I have to disagree. Since I was around back then and saw how africans were treated in the ward, I can honestly say that they were respected. As I said before I have no memory of such a doctrine being taught in priesthood or sunday school. There was no lesson about the priesthood ban to my memory. But we all had lessons about being morally clean and being perfect as god is perfect. We also had lessons about loving our neighbor. I do remember ward members discussing the priesthood ban in informal settings and I do remember that people had their ideas. But I never saw it taught in lessons. Such is my memory.

I think that mormons should be given credit for their treatment of african members. They sat side by side with them, worshipping god. Now were mormons perfect? No. Some were prejudice as were the majority of americans against many ethnic groups. Just ask an Irish man or woman at the turn of 20th century america.

Edited June 19, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Kevin, don't you hold our prophets to a higher standard? I don't beleive they were any more racist than the average person of their day, but that's not an excuse. We our constantly told "we are in the world, but not of it" and that "God's ways aren't man's ways" when justifying the no hair, one ear ring, or no sleeveless shirts policies.

I don't hold prophets to higher standards at all. This was a problem for many early members of the lds church when it came to Joseph Smith. How often did he tell the members that he was not perfect nor righteous? Prophets are just human beings with a high calling. I believe that the apostles of christ were not exactly full of love for non-jews. And why did Jesus only go among the jews? I think that prophets were products of their age and christ needed to deal with their imperfections. And I am sure that Paul was also prejudice about pagans and their lifestyle.

And old testament prophets? Products of their age? Most definitely.

Edited June 19, 2013 by why me