jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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. You are quite correct. Canaan was the son of Ham, and the curse was said to be through Ham to Canaan.
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Not only "Blackness" but "Heat". Moses 7 8 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. Remember CHAM in the Aramaic means both "blackness" and "heat".
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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. No worries. If I were a believer, I would simply say that these scriptures may not mean what we think, and current church doctrines suggests we should be looking for an alternative interpretation. As a nonbeliever, I would say that the Pearl of Great Price reflects the beliefs of the time period in which it was produced. Heck, I know some believers who say the same thing. To me, the important thing is that these beliefs have been repudiated. If we believe in continuing revelation, this shouldn't be a problem. Prophets are not infallible.
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Now attempt to convince me that it is explicit that the curse of the Canaanites was what deprived Pharaoh of the priesthood and not because he claimed it through his mom. Can't remember if I came to the maternal conclusion myself because I was ticked off that a mom could teach her child all righteousness and yet he wouldn't be given full access to the gospel or whether I got it from reading Nibley but I've interpreted it that way since my teens (40 so years) Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm
Gray Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Not only "Blackness" but "Heat".Moses 78 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.Remember CHAM in the Aramaic means both "blackness" and "heat". The land was cursed with heat, the blackness was purportedly put on the Canaanites themselves.
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) This is so off topic...and I participated fully in the derail, my apologies. Fragmented sleep last night allows me to excuse myself from self-discipline. Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Today's church Apostles claim they don't know where the Priesthood Ban Came From and they repudiate the Doctrines taught for 100 years. Yet Earlier Prophets knew exactly where it came from: Joseph Fielding Smith: Tenth Prophet and President of the Mormon Church: “Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam’s posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been ‘despised’ among all people.’ This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith….we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood.” The Way to Perfection, pages 110-111 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). What does the Bible Dictionary say about it? Ham Ham Hot. Son of Noah (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13); cursed (9:18–22). The names of his descendants are given in 10:6–7; they were the southern nations: from Cush came the dark-skinned race of eastern Africa and southern Arabia; from Mizraim the Egyptians; from Phut the Libyans; from Canaan the inhabitants of Palestine before the arrival of the Semitic races. See also Abr. 1:21–27, where we learn among other things that Ham’s wife and daughter were named Egyptus, and that a portion of Ham’s descendants settled in Egypt (Ps. 78:51; 105:23; 106:22). Yes Noahs son Ham and their Nations reside in the "dark-skinned" races of "eastern Africa". Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) So are current leaders in apostasy, Zak, for their doctrinal standings in your opinion? Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Now attempt to convince me that it is explicit that the curse of the Canaanites was what deprived Pharaoh of the priesthood and not because he claimed it through his mom. Can't remember if I came to the maternal conclusion myself because I was ticked off that a mom could teach her child all righteousness and yet he wouldn't be given full access to the gospel or whether I got it from reading Nibley but I've interpreted it that way since my teens (40 so years) I was 13 when the priesthood ban ended, so I never spent much time on the justification for the ban. It wasn't until the old. a.r.m. that I thought much of it, when a member of the church argued that the ban was the result of a conflation of Cain and Canaan. You really do have to read the Abraham verses about Cain with the Moses verses about Canaan to get the priesthood ban, and I suppose you could make an argument that it was a result of Pharaoh wanting to have the priesthood through his mother's birthright. But then, as Goldenberg notes, the Canaanites were associated with the Egyptians, so a priesthood ban based on matrilineage is still associated with "blackness." Me, I'm just glad it's been repudiated, and I am always surprised that people want to continue to justify it almost 40 years later using arguments the church has explicitly repudiated. I find that really weird. Edited October 20, 2015 by jkwilliams
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 This is so off topic...and I participated fully in the derail, my apologies. Fragmented sleep last night allows me to excuse myself from self-discipline. Guilty here, too. I don't know how we got from Catholicism to the priesthood ban to current prophets potentially being in apostasy.
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) So are current leaders in apostasy, Zak, for their doctrinal standings in your opinion?I wouldn't presume to make such a call. However, the current essay they have given to try and explain it leaves a lot to be desired. Don't hide behind the fact that "we don't know" because the writings of our earlier prophets say otherwise. They knew exactly why the Ban was put in place and that some day it would be removed. Praise God that the ban has been lifted... but you don't have to throw away early leaders and 100 year old "doctrine" to the wind. Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 I wouldn't presume to make such a call. However, the current essay they have given to try and explain it leaves a lot to be desired.Don't hide behind the fact that "we don't know" because the writings of our earlier prophets say otherwise. They knew exactly why the Ban was put in place and that some day it would be removed.Praise God that the ban has been lifted... but you don't have to throw away early leaders and 100 year old "doctrine" to the wind. Is it possible that the earlier prophets were wrong in what they thought they knew?
RevTestament Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Yes. Israel came out of Canaan. No, he didn't. Some of his sons had children with Canaanites for instance, Judah himself. Later, Israel failed to chase all the Canaanites out of the promise land, but Jacob himself was not descended from Canaan.
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Is it possible that the earlier prophets were wrong in what they thought they knew?Just as easily as Modern Apostles and Prophets could be mistaken. Are living Prophets Innfallible while dead ones are not? Lets face it... they claim to not know where the ban came from. So apparently earlier prophets knew something that our modern prophets do not. Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) Just as easily as Modern Apostles and Prophets could be mistaken. Lets face it... they claim to not know where the ban came from. So apparently earlier prophets knew something that our modern prophets do not. So, if you believe in continuing revelation, then you would have to accept that God has revealed to the current leadership that the previous leadership was wrong and that we don't know the reason for the ban. At least that's how I see it. Seems like a very strange hill to die on to me. Edited October 20, 2015 by jkwilliams
Buckeye Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Just as easily as Modern Apostles and Prophets could be mistaken. Are living Prophets Innfallible while dead ones are not?Lets face it... they claim to not know where the ban came from. So apparently earlier prophets knew something that our modern prophets do not. Not quite. While the essay does not say where the ban came from, it expressly disavows the doctrines taught by previous leaders as to the source. So while modern leaders are not offering (yet) a different explanation, they clearly are saying that earlier leaders' explanations were wrong. That much they know. And to answer your first question, yes, obviously modern leaders can be mistaken as to doctrine and those mistakes corrected by future leaders. You can have continual revelation or you can have consistent doctrine, but you can't have both.
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) "but you don't have to throw away early leaders and 100 year old "doctrine" to the wind." You should throw away any teachings if they were wrong. Doesn't mean you have to throw away everything they said. I don't feel any need to justify Jonah's bigotry towards Nineveh where he was actually disappointed that God didn't wipe them out after he expected that God would. Why should I treat false ideas from more modern prophets any differently? Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm
Calm Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Just as easily as Modern Apostles and Prophets could be mistaken. Are living Prophets Innfallible while dead ones are not?Lets face it... they claim to not know where the ban came from. So apparently earlier prophets knew something that our modern prophets do not.You need to read Paul Reeve's book.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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.Good thing nobody here -- not me or anyone else -- has done that. Putting them on a "pedestal of infallibility" is one thing. Objecting to dismissively dishonoring them is another.
Yirgacheffe Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Hello LDS friends, There are currently two threads on the great and abominable church (church of Satan) where the Catholic church has been put forward as a candidate. I have stated that this does not personally bother me, as I find such claims laughable and not supported by any real evidence. I also think they are very clearly based on the historical Protestant bias that underlies America. Any in-depth of study of Catholic (European) history would show that our ideas about the Catholic Church's atrocities are not based in fact. I'm not saying that there weren't atrocities -- I'm saying that we fill-in-the-blanks when it comes to things like inquisitions, crusades, etc, and most of our filling-in is simply false. We also have a similar bias when it comes to Medieval times ("Dark Ages"? Really??). I appreciate the LDS folk who have come to the Catholic Church's defense and have offered a more tenable view. Anyways, my point here is not to defend the details but to point out a double standard that I see. My experience with Mormons, both on this board and in person, has shown a completely understandable sensitivity to anti-Mormonism. When someone attack the LDS church, especially if they are disgruntled ex-Mormon, the criticism is deflected by calling the criticizer an anti-Mormon. I'm fairly certain that if someone called the LDS church the church of satan, the mother of harlots, the whore of Bablyon, the great and abominable church, etc, etc, that person would be labeled an anti-Mormon and their motives and methods impugned. If that person were in a position of leadership in another church then their bias would be clearly pointed out -- after all, they have a very strong reason to show that the LDS church is false. Is there a double-standard among LDS members who call the Catholic Church the great and abominable church? Especially if those people are leaders (McConkie, Talmage, etc)? Is it ok to be anti-another religion but not anti-Mormon? Is it acceptable to listen to ex-Catholics' claims (Martin Luther, for example) but not ex-Mormon claims?Well I just listened to M. Russell Ballard say that people with a Catholic back round don't know who God is in a talk from 2014, sounds like anti-Catholicism is doing just fine in higher LDS circles. Not sure how to fit that into who to listen to, Mr. Ballard is not a former Catholic so I can't give him extra weight like I could Luther. Edited October 21, 2015 by Yirgacheffe
Okrahomer Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Well I just listened to M. Russell Ballard say that people with a Catholic back round don't know who God is in a talk from 2014, sounds like anti-Catholicism is doing just fine in higher LDS circles. Not sure how to fit that into who to listen to, Mr. Ballard is not a former Catholic so I can't give him extra weight like I could Luther.Would you mind providing a link or citation?
RevTestament Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 The great abominable church is Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity. Don't worry, the Catholic Church has Pope Francis. Right now the Catholic church is enjoying a great religious leader.Evangelical Christianity did not change the scriptures. If anything Protestant Christianity restored most of the accuracy needed to the scriptures. But, of course they were not able to restore the priesthood. Although there are a few sects guilty of changing the scriptures without prophetic authorization viz a viz, the JWs, and a few others. Therefore, evangelic Christianity is not the GAC.
Calm Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 "If anything Protestant Christianity restored most of the accuracy needed to the scriptures." How so?
RevTestament Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 "If anything Protestant Christianity restored most of the accuracy needed to the scriptures." How so?They dumped the Latin ie "Catholic" scriptures and went back to the Masoretic Text which restored a good bit of accuracy, and the Textus Receptus. Granted, I have more faith in the Masoretic text than the Textus Receptus, but it seems reasonably accurate. I do find it strange that we basically seem to have no NT manuscripts, Greek or Syriac or otherwise, which pre-date the rise of the Roman State church or that is the Council of Constantinople of about 380 AD. I do know later - about 431 AD the eastern churches came under a great deal of persecution over the issue of the "2 natures of Christ" which they would not accept, prompting the western church to go in and replace the bishops and destroy their religious writings. However, by that time I think the Church of the East already had Syrian scriptures which would have survived. It's an interesting question. The Peshitta and the Peshitto seem to uphold the basic accuracy of the Greek manuscripts, but there are differences. The Syriac refers to Christ as "Marya" or YHWH in more than one place - good luck finding that in any Greek manuscript because they follow the lead of the Septuagint it seems.
Yirgacheffe Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Would you mind providing a link or citation? 1
Recommended Posts