Black Women And The Endowment

[theplains]

I had a question on what I read in volume 5 of Answers to Gospel Questions (by

former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith). An image is attached.

 

It said, "Those who have the blood of Cain do not go to the temple for endowment".  

 

Is this applicable to the females too?

 

If yes, what LDS revelation that says Negro females could not initially participate 

in the Endowment while the white [the book uses that term] women could?

 

If no, what difference(s) was there in the males and females which barred the former 

but allowed the latter?

 

From what I know of LDS theology, the priesthood is not required for the endowment 

because women do not hold the priesthood so I do not understand the context of the 

answer.  Maybe the book's use of the term 'endowment' means something else that 

happens in the temple?

 

Thank you for clarifying,

Jim

 

Please use racial designations in use today. I have changed the thread title to reflect current usage.

[JLHPROF]

 

From what I know of LDS theology, the priesthood is not required for the endowment 

because women do not hold the priesthood so I do not understand the context of the 

answer.  Maybe the book's use of the term 'endowment' means something else that 

happens in the temple?

 

In the temple priesthood clothing, priesthood keys, priesthood signs and other priesthood items are bestowed on both men and women (separately).

That is why prior to the removal of the priesthood ban that black women were also forbidden from entering the temple.

Edited August 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

 

I had a question on what I read in volume 5 of Answers to Gospel Questions (by

former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith). An image is attached.

 

It said, "Those who have the blood of Cain do not go to the temple for endowment".  

 

Is this applicable to the females too?

 

If yes, what LDS revelation that says Negro females could not initially participate 

in the Endowment while the white [the book uses that term] women could?

 

If no, what difference(s) was there in the males and females which barred the former 

but allowed the latter?

 

From what I know of LDS theology, the priesthood is not required for the endowment 

because women do not hold the priesthood so I do not understand the context of the 

answer.  Maybe the book's use of the term 'endowment' means something else that 

happens in the temple?

 

Thank you for clarifying,

Jim

 

 

The Temple functions on the Priesthood. It is a call to serve in the Temple. All service in the Temple is by written invitation only. God for his own purposes has not told us why there was a Priesthood Ban on the Negro. Maybe someday he will.

 

Women still do not hold the Priesthood. They function as proxy's in the Temple.

 

The Endowment is a blessing of knowledge, power, and the right to pass the angles that stand as sentinels to exaltation.

[theplains]

In the temple priesthood clothing, priesthood keys, priesthood signs and other priesthood items are bestowed on both men and women (separately).

That is why prior to the removal of the priesthood ban that negro women were also forbidden from entering the temple.

 

Is there an official teaching or revelation that shows that the priesthood ban on the male

also had consequences for the female?  Why couldn't the Negro female have the priesthood

items bestowed on them?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

Is there an official teaching or revelation that shows that the priesthood ban on the male

also had consequences for the female?  Why couldn't the Negro female have the priesthood

items bestowed on them?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

The vestments are symbols of the Priesthood.

[JLHPROF]

Is there an official teaching or revelation that shows that the priesthood ban on the male

also had consequences for the female?  Why couldn't the Negro female have the priesthood

items bestowed on them?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

You want a separate "ban" on black females?  It doesn't exist nor did it need to.  The ban, whatever its source, was specific to lineage, not gender.  The ban was not placed upon the male or the female but upon those supposed to have been descended from Cain (and later Ham/Canaan).

Either way, these things are no longer a doctrine of the Church.

Edited August 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[ERayR]

 

I had a question on what I read in volume 5 of Answers to Gospel Questions (by

former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith). An image is attached.

 

It said, "Those who have the blood of Cain do not go to the temple for endowment".  

 

Is this applicable to the females too?

 

If yes, what LDS revelation that says Negro females could not initially participate 

in the Endowment while the white [the book uses that term] women could?

 

If no, what difference(s) was there in the males and females which barred the former 

but allowed the latter?

 

From what I know of LDS theology, the priesthood is not required for the endowment 

because women do not hold the priesthood so I do not understand the context of the 

answer.  Maybe the book's use of the term 'endowment' means something else that 

happens in the temple?

 

Thank you for clarifying,

Jim

 

 

Irrelevant to present day practices.

[cinepro]

 

I had a question on what I read in volume 5 of Answers to Gospel Questions (by

former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith). An image is attached.

 

It said, "Those who have the blood of Cain do not go to the temple for endowment".  

 

Is this applicable to the females too?

 

If yes, what LDS revelation that says Negro females could not initially participate 

in the Endowment while the white [the book uses that term] women could?

 

If no, what difference(s) was there in the males and females which barred the former 

but allowed the latter?

 

From what I know of LDS theology, the priesthood is not required for the endowment 

because women do not hold the priesthood so I do not understand the context of the 

answer.  Maybe the book's use of the term 'endowment' means something else that 

happens in the temple?

 

Thank you for clarifying,

Jim

 

 

You're asking for "clarity" on a subject for which there is little.  The Church itself says the following in the introduction to Official Declaration 2:

 

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance.

 

So there is no evidence of a revelation barring black men from the priesthood, and there is definitely no evidence of a revelation barring black women from the Temple.  We just don't know how or why it started.  We don't even know that a revelation was required to undo the ban; even the Church says that it was the leaders who believed it was necessary, which is very different than saying it was actually necessary.

 

So the ban on black women entering the Temple has the same indeterminate, illogical origins as the priesthood ban, and it was mercifully done away with (although not explicitly) at the same time the priesthood ban was done away with.

 

Truly the gospel is simply wonderful, and wonderfully simple.

[cinepro]

I will also add that Joseph Fielding Smith had some very, very rigidly orthodox/tradition/conservative views, and these are clearly expressed in his "Answers to Gospel Questions" books (which were a compilation of a articles he wrote for the Church's magazine). 

 

While many of these "answers" are benign expositions on basic LDS beliefs that are still supported today, many of them are erroneous declarations of cultural and personal beliefs that were commonly held by LDS at the time (no doubt due in part to his articles!), but have been disavowed or ignored into obscurity by the modern Church members and leaders, though you will still find a certain age and breed of LDS that consider the "answers" the gospel truth.

[ChristKnight]

I'm curious about what he says about the patriarchal blessings of "negros", and how it would declare them to be of the lineage of Cain or Canaan.  Never heard that before.

[Calm]

According to this article, at the time while only ten of the twelve tribes had been used as lineages in the blessings, 15 other lineages had also including Cain. Patriarch Smith instructed that only lineages from the 12 tribes should be used in 1971, see page 4.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N03_11.pdf

A talk from Eldred Smith in 1952 that briefly refers to the understanding of the time, but doesn't really give any more info:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=574

Edited August 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

 

...............................................................................  

 

Please use racial designations in use today. I have changed the thread title to reflect current usage.

 

If we are discussing African-Americans, or Africans, this may be a pseudo-correction.  After all, the priesthood ban did not apply to black people native to other parts of the world (e.g., Pacific Islanders) -- the ban did not apparently have anything to do with skin color, but rather with presumed lineage.

[Robert F. Smith]

I will also add that Joseph Fielding Smith had some very, very rigidly orthodox/tradition/conservative views, and these are clearly expressed in his "Answers to Gospel Questions" books (which were a compilation of a articles he wrote for the Church's magazine). 

 

While many of these "answers" are benign expositions on basic LDS beliefs that are still supported today, many of them are erroneous declarations of cultural and personal beliefs that were commonly held by LDS at the time (no doubt due in part to his articles!), but have been disavowed or ignored into obscurity by the modern Church members and leaders, though you will still find a certain age and breed of LDS that consider the "answers" the gospel truth.

Correct, cinepro, although the content of his books on this subject were always his own opinions and did not ever constitute LDS doctrine (the conclusion of David O. McKay, after careful research).  In 1978, his son-in-law said it best:

 

"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."  -- B. R. McConkie, "All are Alike unto God," CES Educators Symposium, Aug 18, 1978, online at http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570 .

[Robert F. Smith]

The Temple functions on the Priesthood. It is a call to serve in the Temple. All service in the Temple is by written invitation only. God for his own purposes has not told us why there was a Priesthood Ban on the Negro. Maybe someday he will.

 

Women still do not hold the Priesthood. They function as proxy's in the Temple.

 

The Endowment is a blessing of knowledge, power, and the right to pass the angles that stand as sentinels to exaltation.

Are them right angles?

[Guest]

I had a question on what I read in volume 5 of Answers to Gospel Questions (by

former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith). An image is attached.

 

It said, "Those who have the blood of Cain do not go to the temple for endowment".  

 

Is this applicable to the females too?

 

If yes, what LDS revelation that says Negro females could not initially participate 

in the Endowment while the white [the book uses that term] women could?

 

If no, what difference(s) was there in the males and females which barred the former 

but allowed the latter?

 

From what I know of LDS theology, the priesthood is not required for the endowment 

because women do not hold the priesthood so I do not understand the context of the 

answer.  Maybe the book's use of the term 'endowment' means something else that 

happens in the temple?

 

Thank you for clarifying,

Jim

 

Please use racial designations in use today. I have changed the thread title to reflect current usage.

The Church has come out and said this whole thing was cultural and a mistake and took action many decades ago to stop it and all the unfortunate comments that brought it about. Can we just not rejoice that we have freed ourselves from this sad chapter in our history. Let the wound heal!

[mfbukowski]

Are them right angles?

I think so! 

[JLHPROF]

Correct, cinepro, although the content of his books on this subject were always his own opinions and did not ever constitute LDS doctrine (the conclusion of David O. McKay, after careful research).  In 1978, his son-in-law said it best:

 

"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."  -- B. R. McConkie, "All are Alike unto God," CES Educators Symposium, Aug 18, 1978, online at http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570 .

 

Fine, then I choose to forget everything that President Monson says because I think I'm going to like the ideas of the next prophet better.  And I think I'll quit studying Joseph Smith's teachings and only read things published since 2013.

 

So much for eternal truths...I completely disagree with BRM that current truth is always more correct than past truth.  Truth is truth, and we are just as likely to get something wrong today as we were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or at the beginning of the dispensation.  Truth doesn't change and it's arrogance to assume that we are more correct now than then.  All we know when there is disagreement is someone is probably wrong.  Could be the old guys, could be the new guys.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................

...............................................   

Attached Thumbnails

The thumbnail has "the lineage of Cain or Canaan," as though they were one and the same.  This is a mistake.

 

Cain (Qayin) and the Qenites (Qeni) are nomads or semi-nomads (Genesis 4:12-14, 16; Judges 1:16, 4:11, Numbers 10:29).  Each bears a name from the same Semitic root, qyn, meaning “smith, craftsman” (Arabic qyn “forge, repair metal”; qayna “tinsmith, craftsman”; Syriac & Aramaic qyn’h, qyny “metalsmith”; cf. II Samuel 21:16 qayin “spear, weapon”; Genesis 10:2, Isaiah 66:19, Ezekiel 27:13, 32:26, 38:2, 39:1), which the writer of Genesis 4:22 understood very well in defining Tubal-Cain as a “worker in copper and iron”and Tubal is certainly comparable to Sumerian dibira, tibira “metal-workers” (cf. the Tabalians/ Tibarenes, manufacturers of copperware in Anatolia).

 

None of these terms is even remotely related to the word Canaan (Kenaʿan).  Only in English usage is there any similarity in sound.

 

But, since the Kenite (Qenite)-Midianite genealogy stems from Cain, perhaps we should focus there (Genesis 4:17-26, attributed to J).   The Coptic Gnostic Nag Hammadi Codex II contains references to the conception of Cain through Eve’s intercourse with the Devil (1:24:15-18 [Apocryphon of John], 4:89:22-23), and this is also true of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Jerusalem I, to Genesis 4:1a), and perhaps of II Enoch 31:4-6.  The same sort of wild speculation is also found in Talmudic aggada, though most of it need not be taken seriously: The commission of several violations of a sexual nature by Ham (or Canaan) led to Cush being punished with a black skin (TB Sanhedrin 108b), and to more general curses (Midrash Genesis Rabba 36:5,7; TB Sanhedrin 70a; Pirkei deRabbi Eleazer 23).  There is a more interesting parallel in Ham’s theft of holy garments from Noah – he passed them on to his sons, Cush and Nimrod (Pirkei deRabbi Eleazer 24; Sefer ha-Yashar, Noa 22).  Cain likewise steals a skin garment from Abel, leading to murder (Midrash Genesis Rabba 22:7).  The Books of Mormon and Moses adopt the picture of Cain and his descendants as in league with Satan (Helaman 6:27; cf. Ether 8:15-16; Moses 5:18-56, in which a virtual priesthood of Satan operates as a secret society), and the constant Lamanite-Nephite tension may be interpreted partly on the basis of rival sacerdotal lineages.

 

According to the late Frank Moore Cross, Jr., the E and D documents are the vehicles behind which is recognizable the Mushite-Levite-Midianite-Qenite priestly coalition of Shiloh, Nob, Anathoth, Qadesh-Naphtali, Dan, Qadesh-Barnea, and Arad (cf. Leviticus 10, Numbers 12, Judges, Samuel, Kings, the Prophets, and Ezekiel), while the J and P documents are the carriers of the tradition supporting the Aaronide line of Hebron, Jerusalem, and Bethel (cf. Numbers 16, Joshua, Nehemiah, and Chronicles).  This explains a multitude of apparently contradictory biblical parallels, and in the Book of Mormon may justify the presence of a non-Aaronic priesthood (II Nephi 5:26, Jacob 1:17-19).  Moreover, LDS Doctrine & Covenants 84:6-34 starkly distinguishes between two separate priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchizedek, which have very different lines of authority, and which specifically correlates with Frank Cross’ distinctions.  The point is that matters of lineage are of greater import here than might be realized in a casual study, and they dovetail remarkably well with sacerdotal matters.

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................................I completely disagree with BRM that current truth is always more correct than past truth.  Truth is truth, and we are just as likely to get something wrong today as we were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or at the beginning of the dispensation.  Truth doesn't change and it's arrogance to assume that we are more correct now than then.  All we know when there is disagreement is someone is probably wrong.  Could be the old guys, could be the new guys.

So, you apparently share the view of Boyd K. Packer:  "It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977, "Follow the Rule," speeches.byu.edu).

[JLHPROF]

So, you apparently share the view of Boyd K. Packer:  "It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977, "Follow the Rule," speeches.byu.edu).

 

In that quote, yes.  Truth doesn't change.  It just doesn't.  God's truth is eternal.  Doesn't matter who said it or when or if someone came along later and pronounced something true to be false.

[Robert F. Smith]

So, you apparently share the view of Boyd K. Packer:  "It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977, "Follow the Rule," speeches.byu.edu).

In that quote, yes.  Truth doesn't change.  It just doesn't.  God's truth is eternal.  Doesn't matter who said it or when or if someone came along later and pronounced something true to be false.

Well, then, what do you do about the entirely relativistic dilemma which this may entail?  Should we adopt the existentialist conclusion that there is "no exit," or is there a way out?  Please advise us.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Stargazer]

The Church has come out and said this whole thing was cultural and a mistake and took action many decades ago to stop it and all the unfortunate comments that brought it about. Can we just not rejoice that we have freed ourselves from this sad chapter in our history. Let the wound heal!

 

I've not heard this, Pa Pa.  CFR, please?  Or is this your interpretation of what the Church actually said?

[thesometimesaint]

I've not heard this, Pa Pa.  CFR, please?  Or is this your interpretation of what the Church actually said?

 

Maybe this is what he had in mind. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

[Ahab]

Fine, then I choose to forget everything that President Monson says because I think I'm going to like the ideas of the next prophet better. And I think I'll quit studying Joseph Smith's teachings and only read things published since 2013.

So much for eternal truths...I completely disagree with BRM that current truth is always more correct than past truth. Truth is truth, and we are just as likely to get something wrong today as we were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or at the beginning of the dispensation. Truth doesn't change and it's arrogance to assume that we are more correct now than then. All we know when there is disagreement is someone is probably wrong. Could be the old guys, could be the new guys.

You'd be better off to just ignore everything BRM said, unless our Father said the same thing either personally or through our Lord and the Holy Spirit. Those are the 3 I rely on to know what the truth is and anything else is just another person's opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

You'd be better off to just ignore everything BRM said, unless our Father said the same thing either personally or through our Lord and the Holy Spirit. Those are the 3 I rely on to know what the truth is and anything else is just another person's opinion.

 

I'm not willing to go that far. BRM was a good devout LDS man. I greatly admire him and his knowledge of Gospel subjects. What I don't do is regard everything he said as Gospel.