Descendants Of Cain

[Calm]

 

 

The church clarified that it wasn't "black" skin, it was African heritage. So using past unenlightened thinking (per McConkie), , anyone who is cursed is from Africa.  Again, CFR that Canaanites were "black", find any scholar or archaeologist who postulates such a thing let alone that they were of African heritage.

Perhaps Rob who believes in a global flood sees it as reversed, all Africans came from the Canaanites.

[Calm]

When I read past quotes it fires me up to quell the people that spout these things.

Exactly.

[frank_jessop]

Seems rather imperialistic or blind obedience to political correctness to refer to all blacks as "african americans".

For the question of the original post, it is current Doctrine that Egyptus was of Cain, this is settled by the currentOT Religion Institute manual. Your Gospel Doctrine instructor was correct according to present LDS Doctrine.

The Church disavowed "theories" and "racisn", not past Doctrine for which the will of Lord was involved.

[cinepro]

I'll also add that the current (published in 2000) Pearl of Great Price manual teaches that Abraham 1:27 is directly related to the recent LDS Priesthood Ban:

 

The Pharaoh and the Priesthood

 

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:

 

“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, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld,....

 

If Abraham 1:27 isn't directly related to the LDS Priesthood ban, then this is a catastrophic non-sequitur.

[cinepro]

Perhaps Rob who believes in a global flood sees it as reversed, all Africans came from the Canaanites.

 

The Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual seems to support this doctrine:

 

 

Pharoah, King of Egypt Abraham 1:20–27. A Pharaoh in Egypt

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote: “After the immersion of the earth in the waters of Noah came a day of new beginning. As in Adam’s day, the faithful lived under a theocratic system, and as in the days before the flood, those who chose to live after the manner of the world set up their own governments and their own ways of worship. The seed of Shem, Ham, and Japheth began to populate the earth, and it so continued for more than four hundred years, when Abraham, who received theocratic power from Melchizedek, went down into Egypt. There he found a descendant of Ham, reigning as Pharaoh, whose government was patterned after the patriarchal governments of old, but which was devoid of priesthood and revelation, and hence, as far as worship is concerned—a worship prescribed, mandated, and commanded by pharaoh—had turned to idolatry.’ (Abraham 1:20–27.)” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 660).

Edited March 3, 2014 by cinepro

[Gray]

You too can "be there" by doing the same thing in your ward if such comments ever come up.

It is really nice to have electronics on hand that can pull up stuff on the Church's own website that refutes the folklore.

 

I will, but my ward is liberal enough that I've never heard anything like that. We have half a dozen active black  members as well. It's hard to spout that kind of stuff in my ward. 

[bluebell]

Seems rather imperialistic or blind obedience to political correctness to refer to all blacks as "african americans".

For the question of the original post, it is current Doctrine that Egyptus was of Cain, this is settled by the currentOT Religion Institute manual. Your Gospel Doctrine instructor was correct according to present LDS Doctrine.

The Church disavowed "theories" and "racisn", not past Doctrine for which the will of Lord was involved.

 

So, if it's not in the new book, then what?

 

Does that mean that the doctrine changed on the date the new manual is printed (and not a second before)?

 

Or does it mean that it was never doctrine to begin with?

Edited March 3, 2014 by bluebell

[Calm]

Gary, I think that is even more awesome. I look forward to the day that is the norm.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

I will, but my ward is liberal enough that I've never heard anything like that. We have half a dozen active black  members as well. It's hard to spout that kind of stuff in my ward. 

 

I've never heard it taught in any ward I've ever been a member of as well.  And I've been in a number of them, in five different states just in the last 12 years. 

[teddyaware]

Teddy,

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form....

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”24 and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”25"

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Hi Cal,

 

Here's the problem: If those two apostles are speaking the truth, then the very things most here are saying the Lord would never do on the earth (i.e. cause physical differences based on worthiness in this life or in the pre-existence) will be done in the hereafter. And if he does create differences in or bodies after the resurrection based on what we do here, what does that say about the Lord?

Edited March 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gray]

Seems rather imperialistic or blind obedience to political correctness to refer to all blacks as "african americans".

For the question of the original post, it is current Doctrine that Egyptus was of Cain, this is settled by the currentOT Religion Institute manual. Your Gospel Doctrine instructor was correct according to present LDS Doctrine.

The Church disavowed "theories" and "racisn", not past Doctrine for which the will of Lord was involved.

 

Racism is still racism, even when it's claimed to be the will of the Lord. The church has disavowed all racism. End stop. 

[frank_jessop]

So because one person repeats "garbage" it is helpful to add more "garbage" to the pile by repeating it ourselves rather than just offering up correct doctrine?

As you are one who promotes Fair, I would think you would accept that uncomfortable things were taught by Apostles and Prophets, that you would acknowledge the apparent official source (the Apostle or Prophet speaking in a Official capacity), then would offer current Doctrine on the matter quoted. Rather implying that people should never bring up past teachings...such a head in the sand approach is what is contributing to the current faith crisises of many.

[Tacenda]

Exactly.

I get what you are saying.  That I should leave past quotes alone and that will keep them silent.  I guess I can chew on that for awhile.  But then again, what if we never talk about the horrors of the Holocaust?  Will anyone be outraged enough to never do harm like that again?  I hope the church goes full throttle on apologizing about the ban and even MMM, even more than Pres. Uchtdorf has.  Even the essay is not apparent enough for all to see.      

[frank_jessop]

So, if it's not in the new book, then what? Does that mean that the doctrine changed on the date the new manual is printed (and not a second before)? Or does it mean that it was never doctrine to begin with?

You will uave to answer that for yourself. As it is right now, it is Doctrine and an Officially published teaching of the Church.

[cinepro]

So, if it's not in the new book, then what?

 

Does that mean that the doctrine changed on the date the new manual is printed (and not a second before)?

 

Or does it mean that it was never doctrine to begin with?

 

I've heard (from the Church) that we can discern doctrine from the Scriptures, the statements of Church leaders, and what is taught in official Church publications (including manuals).

 

I've never heard that we can determine doctrine by pre-supposing what may or may not be changed in future publications.  If you have a reference for that, let me know.

[frank_jessop]

Racism is still racism, even when it's claimed to be the will of the Lord. The church has disavowed all racism. End stop.

But was it racism? You may think it is, but did the Church condemn all the past Prophets and Apostles who taught it as Doctrine and as the will of a Higher being?

[Calm]

I get what you are saying. That I should leave past quotes alone and that will keep them silent. I guess I can chew on that for awhile. But then again, what if we never talk about the horrors of the Holocaust? Will anyone be outraged enough to never do harm like that again?.

I am not so sure you do get what I am saying. Perhaps this analogy will help.

A mom is listening to her children discuss racism they heard at school. She has had the talk with them before about how it is wrong to speak of others that way and when she hears that her children not only didn't participate but told their friends they were wrong, she gushed "I am so proud of you! And I am so proud you didn't also call blacks...." listing off several explicit vulgarities.

They are also having this conversation in a public place where there just happened to be a black family sitting nearby listening.

There are appropriate times and ways to teach how not to be racist. Popping up with old quotes that no one is currently talking about and saying "isn't it great we recognise we shouldn't be saying this kind of stuff anymore" isn't one of them in my opinion.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Gray]

But was it racism? You may think it is, but did the Church condemn all the past Prophets and Apostles who taught it as Doctrine and as the will of a Higher being?

 

Race-based discrimination is racist by definition, it doesn't matter where the policy came from 

[bluebell]

I've heard (from the Church) that we can discern doctrine from the Scriptures, the statements of Church leaders, and what is taught in official Church publications (including manuals).

 

I've never heard that we can determine doctrine by pre-supposing what may or may not be changed in future publications.  If you have a reference for that, let me know.

 

Exactly what i was thinking actually.

 

I don't know that finding something in one outdated student manual that most of the church will never be taught from or read is how the church wants us to define what is current doctrine.

 

If something is doctrine, we should be able to find it in more than one source, right?  As the church says, it should be in the scriptures, and the manuals (note the plural of that word) and other teachings of current leaders that have been published as official sources of doctrine.  

 

Does the church teach that something is doctrine if it is only found in one current manual taught to one group of people (institute students) but taught to no one else and found in no other current church publication?  I don't think it does.  

 

I'm not trying to be snarky.  It just does not seem like a reasonable interpretation of the church's teachings on what is doctrine.

 

If this is truly doctrine, you'd think the church would make sure that it was actually in the Gospel Doctrine manual lesson about this very topic.  That it was taught in all the current Sunday school manuals and the seminary manuals.  Why are only institute students supposed to know this but no one else?

 

The church has not included it in any of the new manuals that i have found.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that might mean something.

 

As for my questions about what would happen if it's in the new manual, i'm sorry if i confused you.  I was not referring to how to know what is doctrine but to Frank's implication that if something is in one outdated manual that is currently being revised because it is outdated, we can still be sure that everything taught in it is doctrine.

 

That reasoning seems neither logical or prudent.

 

If i know that a manual is outdated and is being revised because not everything in it is accurate to the church's teachings anymore, it seems wise for me to wait to see what the church thinks is outdated about it, before I pronounce that everything in it MUST be doctrine.  

[teddyaware]

That is why Elder Uchtdorf elaborated that leaders make mistakes. We also have the earlier instruction that not everything individual thing said by a leader constitutes doctrine...it may just be well thought out opinion.  You did not reference these statements by the way so that we know when they were said. Joseph Fielding was the only prophet I found who limited black salvation, he said that they would be eternal "servants". This goes against other prophets who said they would eventually receive the same blessings as other. 

 

Does this ugly statement create people of inferior status? Has the church just come out and said they disavow that? 

 

 

The church clarified that it wasn't "black" skin, it was African heritage. So using past unenlightened thinking (per McConkie), , anyone who is cursed is from Africa.  Again, CFR that Canaanites were "black", find any scholar or archaeologist who postulates such a thing let alone that they were of African heritage.

You're missing the point of my post. My point is that even if He hasn't done so here, in the hereafter God apparently is going to cause there to be significant differences in the appearance of our bodies based on how we lived our lives here on this earth.

 

My question is will this divinely caused differentiation by outward appearance be fair and just on God's part?  

Edited March 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

You're missing the point of my post. My point is that even if He hasn't done so here, in the hereafter God apparently is going to cause there to be significant differences in the appearance of our bodies based on how we lived our lives here on this earth.

 

My question is will this divinely caused differentiation by outward appearance be fair and just on God's part?  

 

Considering that this change is caused by our own choices, can we really imply that God has anything to do with how we ultimately turn out?

 

 (and of course I am not talking about the use of Atonement which allows the change to occur, but only about who get's to make the decision about what the end result will be)

[Senator]

 

 If those two apostles are speaking the truth

 

This being key

[katherine the great]

Could you distinguish what you deem is racist and what you consider is "folk doctrine"?  You first mention the Instructor, then you mention your friend...which one do you consider saying something racist and which saying "folk doctrine".  

 

Gospel Doctrine Instructor:

 

Should anything not in the correlated Manuals be taught, or even brought up, by the called and set apart instructor? No. (If it is not in the correlated materials that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain, the instructor should not have said it.)

 

Was it racist for the instructor to have said it? No.

 

Your Neighbor and Friend:

 

Should lay members, be able to offer their opinions, during one on one conversations? Absolutely.

 

Is your neighbor and friend racist for saying that the black skin is the curse of Cain, passed down to predominantly peoples of the African continent?

 

Is it possible your neighbor is adhering to what is term "folk doctrine" - perpetuated beliefs the have a tenious basis in scripture and teachings of Prophets and Apostles - by his Curse of Cain philosophy or the Egyptus philosophy? Possible.

I was not criticizing my friend.  He was trying to answer my question.  And yes, the belief that black skin is the curse of Cain is racist in nature.  The teacher, yes I was criticizing.  

[teddyaware]

Considering that this change is caused by our own choices, can we really imply that God has anything to do with how we ultimately turn out?

 

 (and of course I am not talking about the use of Atonement which allows the change to occur, but only about who get's to make the decision about what the end result will be)

Considering that this change is caused by our own choices, can we really imply that God has anything to do with how we ultimately turn out?

 

 (and of course I am not talking about the use of Atonement which allows the change to occur, but only about who get's to make the decision about what the end result will be)

Is it fair and just that based on pre-mortal worthiness God would send one of His pre-existent spirit children -- like Abraham -- to occupy an earthly body within the favored and blessed lineage of the righteous Patriarchal Fathers, while at the same moment in history he did send another of His spirit children to occupy a body in the lineage of wicked idolatrous priests? If so, why would God do such a seemingly unkind and unloving thing?

[saemo]

Is it fair and just that based on pre-mortal worthiness God would send one of His pre-existent spirit children -- like Abraham -- to occupy an earthly body within the favored and blessed lineage of the righteous Patriarchal Fathers, while at the same moment in history he did send another of His spirit children to occupy a body in the lineage of wicked idolatrous priests? If so, why would God do such a seemingly unkind and unloving thing?

Shades of reincarnation?