Update Of The Essay Of Race And The Lds Church

[Gray]

....or we filtered it through our modern american/european assumptions about race....one of the two.

 

But those are built right into the text, right? 

 

I guess you could take a patch work approach - ie this section was modern, that section was ancient. But I don't think that works well 

[Calm]

Just going off my memory here, but I think the change in this quote (if any) is the addition of a reference to "mixed-race marriages are a sin.".

Nope, that was in there from the beginning:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150116035321/http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

It still seems strange to me that post-Biblical notions of race (used to justify slavery, particularly in 18th- and 19th-century America) ended up in scripture that is supposed to have been written thousands of years ago. It suggests to me that modern LDS scripture is as subject to the environment in which it emerges as any other opinion or theory espoused by church leaders.

 

Your Presentism is showing, Delineations based on skin color, culture, religion, and even race are very old indeed. IE; Anyone not Roman was considered a Barbarian by the Roman's having less rights than a Roman citizen. At the time that was the Germanic tribes.

[jkwilliams]

....or we filtered it through our modern american/european assumptions about race....one of the two.

That was my question: Now that the church rejects the most obvious interpretation of those scriptures, what is the alternative reading? I don't know, which is why I asked. Are these reinterpreted or just ignored?

[jkwilliams]

Your Presentism is showing, Delineations based on skin color, culture, religion, and even race are very old indeed. IE; Anyone not Roman was considered a Barbarian by the Roman's having less rights than a Roman citizen. At the time that was the Germanic tribes.

I'm talking about the association of the seed of Cain and Ham with the black race. There's no presentism involved in noting that this particular "doctrine" postdates the Bible by several centuries and was first put forward by non-Judeochristian Arabs but was not picked up by Christians until the 15th century or so as as justification for African slavery.

This book review in BYU Studies is a good summary:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/download/6994/6643

Some highlights:

 

The Genesis 4 account of Cain killing Abel reports that Cain was cursed so that "when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength," and "the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." Though this account makes no reference to skin color, why did many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Americans believe Cain was cursed with black skin, and when did that belief originate? In chapter 13, "The Curse of Cain," Goldenberg reports that the evidence suggests an Armenian author of an apocryphal "Adam-book" from between the fifth and eleventh centuries made the initial mistake: he mistranslated the Genesis 4:5 statement that Cain's "countenance fell" as meaning Cain's face and skin turned dark. This interpretation was repeated infrequently until it gained momentum in seventeenth-century Europe and eighteenth-century America. ...

Most importantly (especially to a book entitled The Curse of Ham), when and how did the story of Noah's curse become associated with black slavery? While the Genesis text explicitly states it was Ham's son Canaan that was cursed by Noah, many commentators, including Mormons, applied the curse to Ham, and through him to all of Ham's children. How, why, and when did readers redirect the curse at Ham? See chapter 11, "Ham Sinned and Canaan was Cursed!" for the history of that

interpretative leap. In that chapter and in chapter 12, "The Curse of Ham," Goldenberg reports that he found no link between skin color and slavery in Jewish sources from antiquity and late antiquity or in early Christian sources. Instead, a commentary thread referring to Canaan as having black skin first appeared among Muslims [sic] in the second century before Christ. An explicit link between blacks, slavery, and the curse is made later, in the seventh century after Christ, also in Arabia. This link occurred precisely "when the Black became strongly identified with the slave class in the Near East, after the Islamic conquest of Africa" (170). Goldenberg summarizes this time period:

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). This book's focus is not on modern sources, but another work by historian Benjamin Braude corroborates the conclusion that among Christians the curse of Ham was not commonly applied to blacks until after the sixteenth century (Braude demonstrates that, up to that point, Christians more commonly used the curse to express animus towards Jews), and not prominently applied until the eighteenth century.

Edited October 1, 2015 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

I'm talking about the association of the seed of Cain and Ham with the black race. There's no presentism involved in noting that this particular "doctrine" postdates the Bible by several centuries and was first put forward by non-Judeochristian Arabs but was not picked up by Christians until the 15th century or so as as justification for African slavery.

This book review in BYU Studies is a good summary:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/download/6994/6643

Some highlights:

 

 

While the concept of Cain and Ham closely follows the Bible. When understood as a separation based /on culture then that idea predates the Bible by many many thousands of years to a time of sitting around the cook fires telling stories of origins.

[jkwilliams]

While the concept of Cain and Ham closely follows the Bible. When understood as a separation based /on culture then that idea predates the Bible by many many thousands of years to a time of sitting around the cook fires telling stories of origins.

I'm not sure what you mean. We're not talking about separation based on culture but by lineage and skin color. In this case, the lineage/skin color thing does not closely follow the Bible but is a later and erroneous extrapolation that gained currency as an attempt to justify slavery.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sometime in the unspecified future -- perhaps in 39 years and a few months or so -- some cyber-archaeologist is going to find the record of this board on some archaic magnetic hard drive in someone's garage; and they will wonder why early 21st century Mormons were so startlingly stupid as to expect the Church to fall in with the (by then expired) fad of same sex "marriage."

Fortunately, the record will show that it was just a silly fringe notion.

To be precise, it's 39 years, 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes and 27 seconds.

[jkwilliams]

To be precise, it's 39 years, 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes and 27 seconds.

Well, no one can predict the future, and we may well be dead by then, anyway. My guess is that the church is not going to accept same-sex marriage anytime soon. But then I knew a lot of people who said the same thing about the priesthood ban. Who knows? In 40 years, the church could be radically different or not.

Edited October 1, 2015 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Russell C McGregor, on 30 Sept 2015 - 10:23 PM, said:

Sometime in the unspecified future -- perhaps in 39 years and a few months or so -- some cyber-archaeologist is going to find the record of this board on some archaic magnetic hard drive in someone's garage; and they will wonder why early 21st century Mormons were so startlingly stupid as to expect the Church to fall in with the (by then expired) fad of same sex "marriage."

Fortunately, the record will show that it was just a silly fringe notion.

Scott Loyd;

To be precise, it's 39 years, 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes and 27 seconds.

 

I'd take that bet. SSM is a silly, fringe fad? Riiiiiight....

 

Hopefully equality never go out of fashion.

 

I expect to see the exact opposite. Just as we now look back upon the civil rights movement and have difficulty wondering how the bigotry was tolerated and justified, I think we'll look back at the LGBT discrimination in the same way. We'll wonder why anyone ever thought they had the right to prevent others from getting married.

 

And there will be many in the church who fought against SSM testifying of how happy they were when the Supreme Court made their decision on gay marriage.

Edited October 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Kenngo1969]

Sexuality is much more malleable than race.

[Teancum]

It does not inspire confidence in infallible prophets.  Of course there is no such thing as an infallible prophet, and God does not dance to some human tune.  In fact, our prophets are all too human, and seek unity rather than alpha-male dominance in their decision-making.  So unlike the world and its expectations . . .

 

 

Well I am not the one that is constantly teaching "follow the prophet, follow the brethren, follow even if what the prophet says is wrong and you will be blessed,"   I am not presenting this.....:

 

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

 

 

...as a church position in church publications or from the pulpit at conference like this has been presented a few times in the past couple years.

 

If the church wants to have the ability to leave something behind that was fairly consistently taught for years a simply "our leaders are not infallible" then it seems they should stop saying things that set people up to view them as such.

[HappyJackWagon]

Sexuality is much more malleable than race.

Really?

How do you know that?

[Gray]

Sexuality is much more malleable than race.

 

Well, you can be a mix of many races, just like you can be anywhere along the spectrum of gay and straight. 

[Danzo]

I'm not saying they're always right, but they should know better than racism if they're the representatives and mouthpiece of God for our world. And why it took over a decade after the Civil Rights movement to finally allow blacks to the priesthood. What I'm getting at is I think the right church and it's leaders if inspired by God shouldn't have been so wrong for so many years on racism. The church should've been leading the way in the world in allowing blacks the priesthood, not being behind the times and waiting til 1978 when the civil rights movement was in the 60s.

 

I am asking why do you make those assumptions?

 

Is there something in the scriptures that says that they should know better?

[Danzo]

Really?

How do you know that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity

 

"One study by Steven E. Mock and Richard P. Eibach from 2011 shows 2% of 2,560 adult participants included in National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States reported change of sexual orientation identities after a 10-year period: 0.78% of male and 1.36% of female persons that identified themselves to be heterosexuals at the beginning of the 10-year period, as well as 63.6% of lesbians, 64.7% of bisexual females, 9.52% of gay males, and 47% of bisexual males. According to the study, "this pattern was consistent with the hypothesis that heterosexuality is a more stable sexual orientation identity, perhaps because of its normative status. However, male homosexual identity, although less stable than heterosexual identity, was relatively stable compared to the other sexual minority identities". Having only adults included in the examined group, they did not find the differences in fluidity which were affected by age of the participants. However, they stated that "research on attitude stability and change suggests most change occurs in adolescence and young adulthood (Alwin & Krosnick, 1991; Krosnick & Alwin, 1989), which could explain the diminished impact of age after that point"."

 

 

But since race and sexual identity are both social constructs, both are subject to changes as society changes

[ALarson]

But since race and sexual identity are both social constructs, both are subject to changes as society changes

So are you open to the possibility that you may also change your sexual identity and become attracted to someone of the same sex?  If not, then why would you expect others to change?

Edited October 1, 2015 by ALarson

[Gray]

I'm talking about the association of the seed of Cain and Ham with the black race. There's no presentism involved in noting that this particular "doctrine" postdates the Bible by several centuries and was first put forward by non-Judeochristian Arabs but was not picked up by Christians until the 15th century or so as as justification for African slavery.

This book review in BYU Studies is a good summary:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/download/6994/6643

Some highlights:

 

 

Good stuff here, thanks for sharing

[Danzo]

So are you open to the possibility that you may also change your sexual identity and become attracted to someone of the same sex?  If not, then why would you expect others to change?

 

As society changes, their classifications of my attractions might very well change.

I have made a choice (and a covenant) to " love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." (D&C 42)

had I not made that choice and covenant, I who I am attracted to might be subject to change.  

Edited October 1, 2015 by Danzo

[HappyJackWagon]

As society changes, their classifications of my attractions might very well change.

I have made a choice (and a covenant) to " love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." (D&C 42)

had I not made that choice and covenant, I who I am attracted to might be subject to change.  

Kind of a cop out answer.

 

"My sexuality might change, except I covenanted with my wife, therefore it can't change."

How convenient for you. I hope it allows you to avoid Cog Dis.

[Danzo]

Kind of a cop out answer.

 

"My sexuality might change, except I covenanted with my wife, therefore it can't change."

How convenient for you. I hope it allows you to avoid Cog Dis.

 

I sleep very well, thank you for your concern.

 

I hope you don't lose sleep over that fact that you don't seem to believe you can choose to obey the commandments and that everything you do and feel is a result of factors beyond your control.

 

Now if we can get beyond mocking each other for our beliefs we should go back to the topic at hand.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Danzo

[ttribe]

I hope you don't lose sleep over that fact that you don't seem to believe you can choose to obey the commandments and that everything you do and feel is a result of factors beyond your control.

 

One, HJW is heterosexual (as far as I know).

 

Two, HJW is not talking about "everything [we] do and feel is a result of factors beyond [our] control."  I believe he's suggesting that for some people these feelings are an inherent part of their psychology and biology.  The Church's current position would seem to agree more with his position, than yours.

[BlueDreams]

But those are built right into the text, right? 

 

I guess you could take a patch work approach - ie this section was modern, that section was ancient. But I don't think that works well 

 

No, you can assume that a phrase that meant something completely different to the people of said era was interpreted completely differently due to the culture of the people who received it due to their cultural influences....even though the translation may have been fairly correct. 

 

And the translation/revelation/whatever you prefer to call it, could still be ancient (could also be mythos of origins too, but from an ancient perspective). No need to patchwork anything.

 

Read the text, looking for what their definition of "black" may mean. It's not the same. I'll help you out. In the JST of genesis talking about Ham's curse (the one tied to the egyptians) is described as a "dark veil" came upon him. Not dark skin. Likewise in moses 7 it speak of Satan ruling the earth with "chains" and the whole earth being "veiled with darkness" at the point that the earth was destroyed by flood. Lamech, a decsendant of Cain actively seeks out his curse in order to have the same effects doubly pronounced on him because he viewed it as power. He is also described as having his "works were in the dark" (moses 5:51). Through the PoGP (Book of Moses especially) there is a pattern of a people following a path of light and a people in the dark or actively seeking darkness. Much of that is shorthanded for what they were choosing....but we are the ones who have honed in on one phrase of "black" assumed it means black skin (even though a) that's not a thing and b) it never even mentions skin in correlation with the darkness in the entire PoGP). Among a whole lot of other long assumptions about egyptians, lineage, and modern-day race etc. So yeah, I think it's fair to say we might have read our racism into a text that wasn't actually meaning to say that...and then used that as sloppy justification for later policies that weren't apart of the church at first (if this curse thing was such a big deal, you think they would have caught on a little earlier). 

 

With luv,

BD

[Danzo]

One, HJW is heterosexual (as far as I know).

 

Two, HJW is not talking about "everything [we] do and feel is a result of factors beyond [our] control."  I believe he's suggesting that for some people these feelings are an inherent part of their psychology and biology.  The Church's current position would seem to agree more with his position, than yours.

 

He seems to have diagnosed cognitive dissonance in me because I choose to love my wife and no one else.  That choice has only brought me happiness and joy, and have have not suffered any cognitive dissonance from that.  In fact, I just want to share that happiness and joy with others.

 

While I am grateful for his concern, he might want stick to diagnosing people who actually have a problem, instead of projecting those problems on to people who just happen to disagree with him.

[ttribe]

He seems to have diagnosed cognitive dissonance in me because I choose to love my wife and no one else.  That choice has only brought me happiness and joy, and have have not suffered any cognitive dissonance from that.  In fact, I just want to share that happiness and joy with others.

 

While I am grateful for his concern, he might want stick to diagnosing people who actually have a problem, instead of projecting those problems on to people who just happen to disagree with him.

 

Well, I have no idea where he's going with the cog dis reference.  But, your response is beyond off base.