thesometimesaint Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Yep... theres that calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many other early Church leaders as Bigoted Racists. Who didn't know what they were talking about. I prefer to think of them as creatures of their times. Whom God chose to talk to on occasion. I further believe that no one will have any blessing from God denied them due to conditions beyond their control.
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 I prefer to think of them as creatures of their times. Whom God chose to talk to on occasion. I further believe that no one will have any blessing from God denied them due to conditions beyond their control. That's how I always viewed it. The idea that they were either always absolutely right about everything, or they were bigoted racists is a false dichotomy that doesn't help anyone.
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) I prefer to think of them as creatures of their times. Whom God chose to talk to on occasion. I further believe that no one will have any blessing from God denied them due to conditions beyond their control.I agree completely. That doesn't change the fact that this was preached over the pulpit for over 100 years as "official doctrine" and now is being "reputiated" and down played at every turn because of the Hyper-political correct atmosphere permiating today's society. Seemingly to try and save face and score some brownie points (excuse the pun). Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 I prefer to think of them as creatures of their times. Whom God chose to talk to on occasion. None of this drivel about them being "chosen vessels"? Or holders of the keys of the Kingdom in the last dispensation?
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 I agree completely. That doesn't change the fact that this was preached over the pulpit for over 100 years as "official doctrine". And now the church has repudiated it as "official doctrine."
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Yep... As predicted... theres that calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many other early Church leaders who taught this over the pulpit in the tabernacle for over 100 years as Bigoted Racists. Who didn't know what they were talking about.Apparently the Modern church doesn't even stick with Canonized scripture.Abraham121 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.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.If the interpretation of this is that all descendants of Pharaoh were to be banned from the Priesthood because they were descendants of Ham, than given how population works, by the time of Brigham Young probably everyone in the Church would be banned from holding the Priesthood because they would all have Egyptian/Hamitic ancestry of some sort from way back. Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm 2
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) And now the church has repudiated it as "official doctrine."Which is a shame... some one in SLC needs to put on their big boy panties and own this. Rather than cower away and hide from history. And bow to the rampant Politically correctness. Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Which is a shame... some one in SLC needs to put on their big boy panties and own this. Rather than cower away and hide from history. And bow to the rampat Politically correctness. Like it or not, the essay is church doctrine, official and everything.
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Which is a shame... some one in SLC needs to put on their big boy panties and own this. Rather than cower away and hide from history. And bow to the rampant Politically correctness.Really, publishing the fact that it occurred online at lds.org is cowering away and hiding from history? The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.10 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.11 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.12 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained. If it was false doctrine due to misinterpretation of scriptures, do you think it should be proclaimed as true just because it happens to fall in line with what you can "political correctness"? Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm
thesometimesaint Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 None of this drivel about them being "chosen vessels"? Or holders of the keys of the Kingdom in the last dispensation? I don't have a problem with them being chosen or holders of the keys. Putting them on the pedestal of infallibility not so much.
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Really, publishing the fact that it occurred online at lds.org is cowering away and hiding from history? If it was false doctrine, do you think it should be proclaimed as true just because it happens to fall in line with what you can "political correctness"? My only issue with the essay is that it distances itself from teachings that Zakuska correctly points out are in LDS scripture. The views about Cain and Ham that are attributed to American slaveholders are explicitly spelled out in the Pearl of Great Price. So, I understand why Zakuska is upset, but I'm glad the church has repudiated these teachings, scriptural or not. 1
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) My only issue with the essay is that it distances itself from teachings that Zakuska correctly points out are in LDS scripture. The views about Cain and Ham that are attributed to American slaveholders are explicitly spelled out in the Pearl of Great Price. So, I understand why Zakuska is upset, but I'm glad the church has repudiated these teachings, scriptural or not.Not only in scripture but taught over the Pulpit in SLC for 100 years. Was Joseph Smith wrong? July 1831: Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190). Did Joseph Smith misidentify the descedants of the 3 races coming out of the flood? Or was he just dumb? According to history Hams descedants settled all of Africa. Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Not only in scripture but taught over the Pulpit in SLC for 100 years.Was Joseph Smith wrong?July 1831: Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190). The short answer is that the church currently teaches that Joseph Smith's beliefs were speculation and wrong.
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) The views about Cain and Ham that are attributed to American slaveholders are explicitly spelled out in the Pearl of Great Price. Only some of them. The scripture that Zak posted could be interpreted as Pharaoh not being able to get the Priesthood because he claimed it through the maternal line, not the paternal and nothing there connects it to Cain. Why weren't all the sons of Ham cursed if it was a bloodline through their mother and not just Canaan? Genesis is clear that Canaan is cursed because of an action of his father (which makes no sense doctrinally). Not because of his mother's blood. Even if one assumes that Pharaoh cannot have the Priesthood because he carries the blood of the Canaanites, the Canaanites are not required to be the same as the seed of Cain. There is no reference to Cain in Abraham and no reference to Canaanites in Moses and the only reference to "black" is in Moses. And Genesis does not connect the Canaanites with Cain...the name may sound the same in English, but it is not from the same Hebrew root. And Canaan isn't even the son that is associated in legend with black skin, that is the son Cush...who is not cursed in the scriptures. Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm 1
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Not only in scripture but taught over the Pulpit in SLC for 100 years.Was Joseph Smith wrong?July 1831: Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190).According to history Hams descedants settled all of Africa.We are all descendants of Ham. 1
Buckeye Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) My only issue with the essay is that it distances itself from teachings that Zakuska correctly points out are in LDS scripture. The views about Cain and Ham that are attributed to American slaveholders are explicitly spelled out in the Pearl of Great Price. So, I understand why Zakuska is upset, but I'm glad the church has repudiated these teachings, scriptural or not. Problematic scriptures get ignored, not repudiated. We have not repudiated the OT genocide. I can't see us doing any different for racism in the POGP and BOM. But by changing the doctrine we set the stage to begin ignoring the bad fruit parts of the scriptural canon and focusing instead on good fruit. In a way, I'm glad for this. Yes, eventually all evil should be forgotten if we repent, but for the here and now it's very helpful to know that our predecessors were just as flawed as us in their journeys. Edited October 20, 2015 by Buckeye
Gray Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Not only in scripture but taught over the Pulpit in SLC for 100 years.Was Joseph Smith wrong? Yes. Israel came out of Canaan. Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray
Buckeye Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Not only in scripture but taught over the Pulpit in SLC for 100 years.Was Joseph Smith wrong?July 1831: Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190).Did Joseph Smith misidentify the descedants of the 3 races coming out of the flood? Or was he just dumb?According to history Hams descedants settled all of Africa. Do you have a source for this "history." I mean a source other than church history, of course. And as Calm pointed out, if Ham lived when the Bible claims he did, and if he had any descendants, than all of us are his descendants. Same as with Abraham. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Only some of them. The scripture that Zak posted could be interpreted as Pharaoh not being able to get the Priesthood because he claimed it through the maternal line, not the paternal and nothing there connects it to Cain. Why weren't all the sons of Ham cursed if it was a bloodline through their mother and not just Canaan? Genesis is clear that Canaan is cursed because of an action of his father. Not because of his mother's blood. Even if one assumes that Pharaoh cannot have the Priesthood because he carries the blood of the Canaanites, the Canaanites are not required to be the same as the seed of Cain. There is no reference to Cain in Abraham and no reference to Canaanites in Moses and the only reference to "black" is in Moses. And Genesis does not connect the Canaanites with Cain...the name may sound the same in English, but it is not from the same Hebrew root. The Canaanites are said to be the descendants of Ham, at least according to the slave-justifying teachings that began in the 7th century AD among both Christians and Muslims. And, according to David Goldenberg, the Canaanites are also related to the Egyptians in this same tradition and are seen as "black" due to a mistranslation that long postdates the Torah. See the links I provided earlier in the thread. 1
Gray Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Do you have a source for this "history." I mean a source other than church history, of course. And as Calm pointed out, if Ham lived when the Bible claims he did, and if he had any descendants, than all of us are his descendants. Same as with Abraham. Not to mention Ephraim's mother was Egyptian. If Egyptians = sons of Ham = cursed from the priesthood, then the LDS church would have been operating without priesthood until 1978. Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 The Canaanites are said to be the descendants of Ham, at least according to the slave-justifying teachings that began in the 7th century AD among both Christians and Muslims. And, according to David Goldenberg, the Canaanites are also related to the Egyptians in this same tradition and are seen as "black" due to a mistranslation that long postdates the Torah. See the links I provided earlier in the thread. Not saying that traditions and legends don't make the connection. You, however, said the PoGP explicitly did. I don't see that, one has to take the legends and speculation and apply them to the PoGP because nowhere does it say Canaanites were from Cain or were black. 2
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Do you have a source for this "history." I mean a source other than church history, of course.Yes I linked it earlier. Ham (Hebrew: חָם, Modern H̱am, Tiberian Ḥām; Greek Χαμ, Kham; Arabic: حام, Ḥām, "hot" or "burnt"), according to the Table of Nations in the Book of Genesis, was a son of Noah and the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.[2][3] According to the Hebrew Bible, Ham was one of the sons of Noah and the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan, who are interpreted as having populated Africa and adjoining parts of Asia. The Bible refers to Egypt as "the land of Ham" in Psalms 78:51; 105:23,27; 106:22; 1Ch 4:40. Since the 17th century a number of suggestions have been made that relate the name Ham to a Hebrew word for burnt, black or hot, to an Egyptian word for servant or the Egyptian word Kmt for Egypt.[4] A review of David Goldenberg's The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam states that Goldenberg "argues persuasively that the biblical name Ham bears no relationship at all to the notion of blackness and as of now is of unknown etymology."[5]Jubilees The chronological scheme of the Book of Jubilees has Ham born in the year 1209 A.M. — two years after Shem, three before Japheth, and 99 before the flood. It gives the name of his wife who also survived the flood as Na'eltama'uk. After his youngest son Canaan was cursed in 1321 A.M., he left Mount Ararat and built a city named for his wife on the south side of the mountain. In 1569 A.M., he received a third division of the earth along with his two brothers for his inheritance: everything west of the Nile River, and to the south of Gadir. In 1639 A.M. when the nations were scattered following the failure of the Tower of Babel, Ham and his children journeyed to their allotment, with the exception of Canaan, who settled in Shem's territory, thus receiving another curse. According to Jubilees 10:29–34, this second curse is attributed to Canaan's steadfast refusal to join his elder brothers in Ham's allotment beyond the Nile, and instead "squatting" within the inheritance of Shem, on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, the region later promised to Abraham: And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river of Egypt, that it was very good, and he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (that is to) the sea, and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward from the border of Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham, his father, and Cush and Mizraim his brothers said unto him: 'Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, and which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, thou and thy sons will fall in the land and (be) accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled, and by sedition will thy children fall, and thou shalt be rooted out for ever. Dwell not in the dwelling of Shem; for to Shem and to his sons did it come by their lot. Cursed art thou, and cursed shalt thou be beyond all the sons of Noah, by the curse by which we bound ourselves by an oath in the presence of the holy judge, and in the presence of Noah our father.' But he did not hearken unto them, and dwelt in the land of Lebanon from Hamath to the entering of Egypt, he and his sons until this day. And for this reason that land is named Canaan. – Jubilees 10:29–34, As late as 1954 the Apostles were still idenifying Hams lineage as the Negro race. Take this talk for example that was given at BYU. Mark E. Peterson: of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Mormon Church: Race Problems - As they Affect the Church Elder Mark E. Petersen The Convention of Teachers of Religion On The College Level Provo Utah August 27,1954 ---- “Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And When He placed them there, He segregated them….The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse-as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse ….And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there. The Negro was cursed as to the Priesthood, and therefore, was cursed as to the blessings of the Priesthood, Certainly God made a segregation there. “Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accused of having such a prejudice. But what does the mercy of God have for him? This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa-if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost…. “If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to intermarriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church!…. “Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?” Race Problems-As They Affect The Church (address given at Brigham Young University) Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Not saying that traditions and legends don't make the connection. You, however, said the PoGP explicitly did. I don't see that, one has to take the legends and speculation and apply them to the PoGP because nowhere does it say Canaanites were from Cain or were black. Moses 7 certainly connects the Canaanites with "blackness" and a curse.
Gray Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Not saying that traditions and legends don't make the connection. You, however, said the PoGP explicitly did. I don't see that, one has to take the legends and speculation and apply them to the PoGP because nowhere does it say Canaanites were from Cain or were black. It doesn't explicitly say that Canaanites were from Cain, but the POGP says both were black. Moses 7:2222 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. Abraham 1:2121 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. Moses 7:88 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Moses 7 certainly connects the Canaanites with "blackness" and a curse.Oops, I used "canaanites" for my search rather than canaan....and strangely a search on "black" skipped "blackness" so it didn't take me to earlier in the chapter. Will have to be more careful using the search function. My mistake. Yes, Moses 7 is problematic, especially if one assumes "blackness" is skin colour and that the Canaanites in Moses are the same as in Abraham.
Recommended Posts