Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can try to explain that POV...

As to the origins of the ban, the essay simply says it was "announced" by Brigham Young.  If one reads the essays with the presupposition that the ban was revealed of God to Brigham Young, than the essay doesn't require the reader to abandon that belief.  Therefore, when the essay states that church leaders condemn all racism, the reader might assume that what is being condemned is racism on the part of man but that there was no racism from God who implemented the ban.

I can't read it that way.  To me it is clear that the ban is being condemned and all teachings associated with it are being disavowed.

That's certainly my hope, but I don't know the intent.  That paragraph outlines the explanations for the ban, and then condemns past racism.  I'd quess the intent of the writers were to stick to condemning the explanations and not the ban--as condemning the ban explicitly they might incur the ire of the leaders.  But, since they left it open, I'm going to go with the notion that the ban is being condemned as well.  Might as well.  The Church might not budge any closer to condemning the ban than that.  And I'm afraid to ask lest they go with a clarification that supports the ban as inspired and back tracks that notion that they condemn "all racism, past and present, in any form". 

Shoot...I really hope they don't fix the essay now. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That's certainly my hope, but I don't know the intent.  That paragraph outlines the explanations for the ban, and then condemns past racism.  I'd quess the intent of the writers were to stick to condemning the explanations and not the ban--as condemning the ban explicitly they might incur the ire of the leaders.  But, since they left it open, I'm going to go with the notion that the ban is being condemned as well.  Might as well.  The Church might not budge any closer to condemning the ban than that.  And I'm afraid to ask lest they go with a clarification that supports the ban as inspired and back tracks that notion that they condemn "all racism, past and present, in any form". 

Shoot...I really hope they don't fix the essay now. 

I don't think you can try to "guess the intent of the writers" but it does feel like the essay was written to be a bit ambiguous... allowing people to hold to their beliefs on either side.

Personally, I can't comprehend how one can condemn racism, disavow all of the explanations of the ban, and NOT also be condemning the ban itself.  But I have tried to understand those, like Scott, who don't read/understand it the way I do.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I don't think you can try to "guess the intent of the writers" but it does feel like the essay was written to be a bit ambiguous... allowing people to hold to their beliefs on either side.

Personally, I can't comprehend how one can condemn racism, disavow all of the explanations of the ban, and NOT also be condemning the ban itself.  But I have tried to understand those, like Scott, who don't read/understand it the way I do.

I've tried to no avail too.  So I assume they see it more as simple mistake or over-looked issue.  The essays, after all, aren't claimed to be inspired by God, they may rightly point out.

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Rockpond, I know we likely agree more than disagree on this issue, and I've tried some back and forth with Scott on this without much progress.  Maybe you can show me how a reading of the essay allows a member to believe that the ban was of God and that only prior teachings/theories are condemned.  I know some people take that position, I just don't understand what actual words in the essay allow for that interpretation.  Can you enlighten me?  

Ok, I am actually curious.

Leaving aside whether the ban was of God or just old fashioned mortal racism that snuck in, how do we explain scriptures like:
Abraham 1: 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Clearly according to the essays all prior teachings are condemned.  So what does Abraham 1 mean when it says a lineage cannot have the priesthood?
Or that only the lineage of Levi could have that particular order of priesthood?
If race was not the issue, what led to these restrictions?

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can try to explain that POV...

As to the origins of the ban, the essay simply says it was "announced" by Brigham Young.  If one reads the essays with the presupposition that the ban was revealed of God to Brigham Young, than the essay doesn't require the reader to abandon that belief.  Therefore, when the essay states that church leaders condemn all racism, the reader might assume that what is being condemned is racism on the part of man but that there was no racism from God who implemented the ban.

I can't read it that way.  To me it is clear that the ban is being condemned and all teachings associated with it are being disavowed.

Ok, this helps, thanks for taking an attempt at it.  I'm wondering how people who presuppose that the ban was revealed of God would respond to the accusation that this makes God a racist, since God revealed a racist policy.  The policy is still racist, so I'm just wondering would they accept the idea that God revealed a racist policy, or would they try to redefine the meaning of the word racist to make it seem like God's policy wasn't racist.  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Do I really need to start quoting God's "racial" (by which I mean tribal) preferences to you?

I know you'd reject the scriptures containing them anyway, but that seems a bit disingenuous if you are using scriptures to show God's acceptance of all.
These are not mutually exclusive principles.

Tribe is certainly not the same thing as race. If you accept the validity of the New Testament, you'll be aware of this principle: "The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'"

Or perhaps this one: "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." 

But if you're right and the priesthood ban was applied as was formerly supposed, then no member of this church was ever eligible for the priesthood until 1978. Meaning the restoration was totally invalid. 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I am actually curious.

Leaving aside whether the ban was of God or just old fashioned mortal racism that snuck in, how do we explain scriptures like:
Abraham 1: 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Clearly according to the essays all prior teachings are condemned.  So what does Abraham 1 mean when it says a lineage cannot have the priesthood?
Or that only the lineage of Levi could have that particular order of priesthood?
If race was not the issue, what led to these restrictions?

Its a good question, what was Joseph thinking about during the time period that he was working on Abraham chapter 1, which I believe was in 1835, but someone could correct me on that.  An interesting essay I was recently made aware of by Ron Esplin talks about an alternative thesis around the priesthood ban, and I've seen some people use this as evidence that the ban was not implemented by BY, but rather by Joseph.  I've also read that the only individuals who received the priesthood in Joseph's lifetime were only partially black, another interesting twist.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/brigham-young-and-priesthood-denial-blacks-alternate-view

As far as the textual analysis of Abraham 1, I would agree with you that this supports the idea of priesthood by lineage, I think this is also present in the Hebrew Bible.  Joseph tends to borrow ideas from his environment, so I'm not sure where the genesis of this idea came from, but it would be interesting if anyone has some insight that has studied this.  

 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Tribe is certainly not the same thing as race. If you accept the validity of the New Testament, you'll be aware of this principle: "The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'"

Or perhaps this one: "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." 

But if you're right and the priesthood ban was applied as was formerly supposed, then no member of this church was ever eligible for the priesthood until 1978. Meaning the restoration was totally invalid. 

 

I understand all that.  But the scripture specifies lineage.  Not race per se, but definitely lineal descent.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I am actually curious.

Leaving aside whether the ban was of God or just old fashioned mortal racism that snuck in, how do we explain scriptures like:
Abraham 1: 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Clearly according to the essays all prior teachings are condemned.  So what does Abraham 1 mean when it says a lineage cannot have the priesthood?
Or that only the lineage of Levi could have that particular order of priesthood?
If race was not the issue, what led to these restrictions?

Bias or misunderstanding of man.

We see that in Acts 10 where the apostles realize that they actually ARE supposed to be teaching gentiles.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Bias or misunderstanding of man.

We see that in Acts 10 where the apostles realize that they actually ARE supposed to be teaching gentiles.

Teaching the gospel is not quite the same thing as being a priest, but I understand your point.

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I understand all that.  But the scripture specifies lineage.  Not race per se, but definitely lineal descent.

Lineage isn't race, either. But the supposedly "cursed" lineage would have affected all of us, including Joseph Smith. 

And again, New Testament writers (perhaps Jesus) seem to poo-poo the importance of literal lineage. "God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham"

Edited January 24, 2017 by Gray

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I am actually curious.

Leaving aside whether the ban was of God or just old fashioned mortal racism that snuck in, how do we explain scriptures like:
Abraham 1: 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Clearly according to the essays all prior teachings are condemned.  So what does Abraham 1 mean when it says a lineage cannot have the priesthood?
Or that only the lineage of Levi could have that particular order of priesthood?
If race was not the issue, what led to these restrictions?

The lineage claimed was through a daughter, not a son,

[Gray]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I am actually curious.

Leaving aside whether the ban was of God or just old fashioned mortal racism that snuck in, how do we explain scriptures like:
Abraham 1: 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Clearly according to the essays all prior teachings are condemned.  So what does Abraham 1 mean when it says a lineage cannot have the priesthood?
Or that only the lineage of Levi could have that particular order of priesthood?
If race was not the issue, what led to these restrictions?

We should understand that doctrine as having been derived from American protestant theories about the origins of black people:

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

 

Quote

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.

 

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

We should understand that doctrine as having been derived from American protestant theories about the origins of black people:

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

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.

 

Fair enough.  I have read the essay.

That is still no explanation for those scriptures like Abraham and Exodus that limit priesthood based on lineage.
Or D&C 86 that speaks of priesthood continuing in certain lineages (but presumably not every lineage).

There is some connection between lineage and priesthood that is found in scripture.  The Church has been clear on what it's not.  So I am asking what it actually means.

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Fair enough.  I have read the essay.

That is still no explanation for those scriptures like Abraham and Exodus that limit priesthood based on lineage.
Or D&C 86 that speaks of priesthood continuing in certain lineages (but presumably not every lineage).

There is some connection between lineage and priesthood that is found in scripture.  The Church has been clear on what it's not.  So I am asking what it actually means.

Well, the Book of Abraham anachronistically contains some of those protestant ideas about curses of Cain and Ham.

But, in regards to lineage, there is definitely the issue of priesthood contained within a single tribe (Levites). But at the time, priesthood had nothing to do with leadership or being a prophet or being a full Jewish person. Priesthood was all about temple rituals. By contrast, in Mormonism every male is expected to have the priesthood and you can't lead in the church without priesthood, with the exception of certain auxiliaries. Not having it makes you a second-class member. So a priesthood ban based on race is much more significant in Mormonism than the system set up in the Tanakh. 

To have an equivalency with the Old Testament system, it would be more like limiting temple workers to people who are descended from Hyrum Smith. And even then it wouldn't be about race. You can be a black person and still have Hyrum Smith as your ancestor. 

[Kevin Christensen]

From Nibley'sAbraham in Egypt, "A Pioneer Mother", http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1093&index=14

Quote

Answer: Verses 21 through 25 in Abraham 1 must be read carefully to get straight a number of specific propositions:

1.   Egypt is the “Chaldean” name for the land: “Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt” (Abraham 1:23). Here the Book of Abraham is right: Egypt is not the Egyptian name for the land,408 but was first applied to it by the Canaanites (“in the Chaldean”), making its first known appearance in Ugaritic as Ḥkpt, that being an adaptation of the old Egyptian name for Memphis, Ḥw.t-kɜ-ptḥ, which the Egyptians did not apply to the land as a whole, but only to the city.409 It was the “Chaldeans” who gave it to the land. Such is the prevailing, but by no means only, explanation of the name among scholars.

2.   The Egyptians, like Pharaoh himself, were of mixed stock, being partakers “of the blood of the Canaanites” (Abraham 1:21—22). Unhindered by natural boundaries, the Canaanites at all times filtered into Egypt by the oldest road in the world, presenting a recurrent menace throughout all her [Egypt’s] history, according to Gardiner.410 The Delta that attracted them was like the garden of the Lord, offering tempting grazing and farming lands from the earliest times. Examination of skulls from Canaan shows “an array of cranial characteristics surprisingly similar to those of ancient Egypt.”411

Question: Who were the Canaanites?

Answer: “The title ‘Canaanites,’ if it be used at all, must be reserved for the third-millennium Semitic inhabitants of Syria-Palestine and their second-millennium descendants.”412

3.   There has been a great deal of hair-splitting on the subject of Egypt and Canaan, but one sure thing is that Canaanite blood was shared one way or another by almost every pharaoh whose line can be traced:413 “Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham” (Abraham 1:25) “and Egyptus” (Abraham 1:23). The name Egypt is a title, as was Pharaoh (“which . . . signifies king by royal blood“—Abraham 1:20), and was given to the land, just as the title of Pharaoh (like that of Caesar) was given to all who ruled after him. As in the Old Testament, “father” can mean ancestor, or “son” or “daughter” can mean “descendant”;414 this is clear from Abraham 1:26, where Noah is called Pharaoh’s father.

4.   Pharaoh’s claim to the priesthood was invalid, because he insisted with great force that it was the patriarchal priesthood of Noah, received through the line of Ham (Abraham 1:25—27). His earthly rule was blessed (Abraham 1:26), but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother. There is an interesting parallel here with the case of Job, who, according to a newly found Testament of Job, though the most righteous of men and a direct descendant of Jacob or Israel, cannot claim a place among the patriarchs of the line because it is through his mother that he relates to Jacob, while his father’s line, through Esau, was invalid because Esau had forfeited the priesthood.415 Pharoah finds himself in exactly that situation: The male line of Ham had become rebellious, while the female line was not patriarchal.

 

From Nibley'sAbraham in Egypt, "The Trouble with Ham:, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1093&index=15

Quote

These few observations, kept to a minimum, should be enough to make it clear that there is no exclusive equation between Ham and Pharaoh, or between Ham and the Egyptians, or between the Egyptians and the blacks, or between any of the above and any particular curse. What was denied was recognition of patriarchal right to the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession.

For the world-view of the curse that Mormons inherited, rather than invented, and therefore accounts for subsequent Mormon misreadings and misuse of the Book of Abraham passages, see Stirling Adams in BYU Studies on The Curse of Ham and Noah's Curse:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Canonsburg, PA

 

[cinepro]

37 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For the world-view of the curse that Mormons inherited, rather than invented, and therefore accounts for subsequent Mormon misreadings and misuse of the Book of Abraham passages, see Stirling Adams in BYU Studies on The Curse of Ham and Noah's Curse:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Canonsburg, PA

 

Considering the claims the Church makes about "apostasy" and "restoration", the argument that God allowed grossly racist false doctrines to be "inherited" and perpetuated for decades is a little...sad. 

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by cinepro

[Kevin Christensen]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Considering the claims the Church makes about "apostasy" and "restoration", the argument that God allowed grossly racist false doctrines to be "inherited" and perpetuated for decades is a little...sad.

If God or the Church has promised a complete and perfect restoration of all truth that could be consumed like a pill at baptism and comprehended and applied perfectly by the community entire from the start, I would be sad.  But as it happens, I've read the contract carefully to see exactly what I should expect.  And it happens that realistic expectations go a long way towards reducing disappointment.

Quote

  D&C 1:6,

Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants ...

...these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Notice the bits about "their weakness"... the blunt statement that "they erred", the express condition about "seeking wisdom" and coming before instruction, and that knowledge comes from time to time.

Just saying... again

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If God or the Church has promised a complete and perfect restoration of all truth that could be consumed like a pill at baptism and comprehended and applied perfectly by the community entire from the start, I would be sad.  But as it happens, I've read the contract carefully to see exactly what I should expect.  And it happens that realistic expectations go a long way towards reducing disappointment.

Notice the bits about "their weakness"... the blunt statement that "they erred", the express condition about "seeking wisdom" and coming before instruction, and that knowledge comes from time to time.

Just saying... again

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Unfortunately, in the church version 38 of the section you are quoting from seems to get preached far more than verses 24-28.

And, to my knowledge, the Church hasn't ever admitted that they may have erred with the race-based priesthood and temple ban.

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Unfortunately, in the church version 38 of the section you are quoting from seems to get preached far more than verses 24-28.

And, to my knowledge, the Church hasn't ever admitted that they may have erred with the race-based priesthood and temple ban.

Good thing, too!  

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Good thing, too!  

Not.  If they make mistakes, they should do the honest thing and own it.

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not.  If they make mistakes, they should do the honest thing and own it.

That is a good point. There is generally no ownership of specific mistakes. As Dallin Oaks said, the church doesn't seek apologies, "and we don't give them". No repentance. Surely that's not healthy. Usually the most that is said is "mistakes were made", and we stop talking about it. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think you can try to "guess the intent of the writers" but it does feel like the essay was written to be a bit ambiguous... allowing people to hold to their beliefs on either side.

Personally, I can't comprehend how one can condemn racism, disavow all of the explanations of the ban, and NOT also be condemning the ban itself.  But I have tried to understand those, like Scott, who don't read/understand it the way I do.

It might be easier for you to grasp when considered in light of this passage from Isaiah 55:

 

Quote

 

8 ¶For my ^athoughts are not ^byour thoughts, neither are your ^cways my ^dways, saith the Lord.

 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ^aways ^bhigher than your ways, and my ^cthoughts than your thoughts.

 

 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It might be easier for you to grasp when considered in light of this passage from Isaiah 55:

 

 

Is there a "Thus saith the Lord" in anything that has to do with the ban or the essay?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It might be easier for you to grasp when considered in light of this passage from Isaiah 55:

 

 

If God's thoughts are higher than ours, then surely the priesthood ban was a mistake. God's thoughts are not supposed to be lower or on the same level as ours.