The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Because it wasn't done.  Skin color was not the reason for the ban.

But if it wasn't skin color, how do you know if it was skin color, no exceptions would have been made?  There are no examples you can point to as proving that point.

PS:  I am not arguing skin color was the reason, though many used it as the visual symbol of what was used, imo, "blood".

Edited May 11, 2018 by Calm

[MormonMason]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Actually, you don't. And this is my thread and I am also going to ask you to stop. You are just repeating yourself.

Actually, I really, really do.  I assure you that I'm quite well read on the subject.  I've researched the topic well into the early 19th Century and have consulted many primary, documentary sources on the matter.  Secondary and tertiary sources are less useful.  But I'm also being driven into addressing multiple, specific individuals, all angry over what I have stated, including remarks increasingly leaning toward personal attacks.  Some overlap may occur under such circumstances.  But if you want me to go, how shall I address those who are about to go on the attack? Well, I can see the writing on the wall.  I'm sure the ban-hammer is coming soon, anyway.

[Rajah Manchou]

51 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

After 1852, maybe it became a justification for some people.  But the ban still was not based on the color of the skin.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting Elijah Abel was not of the same lineage the other blacks were?

While he had the Priesthood and his descendants, he was not allowed to go to the temple and take out his endowments and as far as I know other ordained blacks were not either.

The ban may have been partially lifted for a few, but it was not fully lifted.

Skin color or lineage, what does it matter?  Either would still qualify as discrimination (the question being whether such discrimation of one group was appropriate).  All were allowed the Priesthood and temple blessings save one group of people.

A black slave named Billy Simons was accepted as a full member of the Beth Elohim synagogue in Charleston even though the charter strictly prohibited members of color. There's a interesting reason why:

"The admission of Billy Simons to the congregation was ostensibly in violation of this rule against accepting proselytes without proper credentials, and particularly if they were "people of color." But Uncle Billy claimed Jewish ancestry as a descendent of the biblical Rechabites, a family who, in following God's commandment to live ascetically, "shall not be cut off. . . [but] stand before Me for ever" (Jeremiah 35:19). Commanded "not to build houses" (35:9) but to dwell "in tents all your days" (35:7), no permanent Rechabite place of settlement was ever recorded. Uncle Billy related how his father frequently told of their descent from the tribe of Rechabites that had settled in Africa." (source)

The Rechabites were said to live in the same place in the farthest extremes of the east/west as the Sons of Moses. From D&C 84:6 we know that the Sons of Moses held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

We have no way of knowing what color skin these "Sons of Moses" have, and I'd think that it is irrelevant to their priesthood. I gather that is what MormonMason is also saying.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

I'm not defending anything "as if it were still going strong and more important than anything in the world."  Your (false, reactive) interpretation of my actions.  What I am doing is showing why it is that it isn't entirely manmade.  It is becoming commonplace to do that sort of thing nowadays when the full array of the evidence considered together implies otherwise.  Throw away a council where it is explained that skin color has nothing to do with it.  Throw away the council of John Taylor where, after President Taylor said he would have to pray about it because the eyewitness testimony was inconsistent, the ban continues.  Throw away the actions of David O. McKay to remove the ban, and his actions after prayer, namely the continuation of the ban he badly wanted to end. Claim it all is nothing more than a cosmic accident and that they all were doing it on account of the color of skins when it really wasn't the case? Where is the logic in doing all of that? Because it makes our "social justice warrior" insides feel good? I think not.  Until I see proof-positive evidence it all was a cosmic accident based on full-on racism, I'll stick to what I know.  Until then I'll defend why I hold such a position as I do.  That is all I am defending.

As it turns out, what you're defending is your interpretation of the information.  That you continue to speak of your interpretation as if it were settled fact, implying that the rest of us should bow to your allegedly superior knowledge, is just plain folly.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We do have the revelation on which the ban is based.  For better or for worse the ban originated from the Book of Abraham (and Moses) teachings.

And Joseph produced them.  He also made numerous statements that would be considered racist today that weren't later recollections.

The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham just like polygamy.  

But just like polygamy the doctrinal background leading to the ban and its beginning implementation came under Joseph.

That's not entirely accurate. While I think there's a bit more to debate, most scholars see the ban originating from southern apologetics for slavery based upon Cain that Brigham Young accepted. BCC has a discussion on this going on. The Book of Abraham is more complicated I think.

[Calm]

Just as an FYI, I am notthe least bit angry, just curious as to how you are reasoning things.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

After 1852, maybe it became a justification for some people.  But the ban still was not based on the color of the skin.  Did you not read what I quoted from the 1847 Council of the Church minutes? The Church did not care about the color of one's skin.  The color of McCary's skin was not the reason why he did not hold the priesthood and they did not care about skin color.  President Young told him that and all at the Council agreed.  That seems not to be enough?

I know, who are the ones that were banned? It was those of African descent, basically because of the times. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Tacenda

[Calm]

MM, if  I am following your reasoning, your point is that it was lineage or blood heritage as it was viewed then that was the determining factor.   And since lineage is used to discriminate in the Bible, this means discrimination in the case of the Priesthood ban should be viewed as legitimately from God for those who accept biblical discrimination as from God.

 I find focusing (by anyone, not just you) on skin color as the main problem with a criticism as kind of ignoring the fact that skin color was one of many identifiers of lineage and so most are simply using that as a visual identifier of the relevant "blood".

So if we assume that when you say "lineage" and others say "race", "skin color", or "blood", everyone is talking about the group of people who were identified as descendants of Cain and Ham, I don't see how your arguments about skin color not being the determinant remove any fundamental problems with the ban.

I also don't see how you can state that skin color wouldn't have resulted in any exceptions when I don't see any sources that deal with that or any examples you can point to (which would be of the type like 'in this case skin color was used as the rule for exclusions and we can find no exceptions, so we can assume if skin color was used for the Priesthood ban there would have been no exceptions made such as Abel').  What makes skin color an absolute category (no exceptions allowed) in your view while lineage is not (exceptions allowed)?

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Interesting.. 

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

At some point after the start of the slave trade in the United States, many^{[citation needed]} Protestant denominations began teaching the belief that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone, although early descriptions of Romani as "descendants of Cain" written by Franciscan monk Symon Semeonis suggest that this belief had existed for some time. Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin.^[19]

Early church exegesis[edit]

In Syriac Christianity, early exegesis on the "curse" and the "mark", associated the curse of Cain with black skin, although not in a racial sense.^[20]

In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century), it is written: "And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain's face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".^[21] Again, this indicated that his face, not his body, had been changed, and that this change had no bearing on any racial or ethnic group.

Baptist segregation[edit]

The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over doctrinal issues pertaining to slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th- and 20th-century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught the belief that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.^[22] Southern Baptists have either taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services.^[23] In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery.^[24]

The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the United States and Europe^{[citation needed]}. The majority of Christian churches in the world, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic dioceses in the Southern United States adopted a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a "curse of Cain" teaching, but was justified by the widely held perception that slaves should not rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or by any papal teaching.^[25]

Curse of Ham[edit]

Further information: Canaan § Black Africans as descendants of Canaan

The Curse of Cain was often conflated with the Curse of Ham. According to the Bible, Ham discovered his father Noah drunk and naked in his tent, but instead of honoring his father by covering his nakedness, he ran and told his brothers about it. Because of this, Noah cursed Ham's son, Canaan by saying that he was to be "a servant of servants". (Genesis 9:20-27) One interpretation of this passage states that Ham married a descendant of Cain, who was black, so that the descendants of Canaan were both marked with black skin and cursed to be servants of servants. While there is no indication in the Bible of Ham's wife descending from Cain, this interpretation was used to justify slavery and it was particularly popular in America during the Atlantic slave trade.^[26][27]

Modern scholars now believe that the Canaanites are of Semitic origin, and therefore unrelated to black Africans.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Tacenda, what is the point of the wiki quote?

Edited May 11, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Actually, I really, really do.  I assure you that I'm quite well read on the subject.  I've researched the topic well into the early 19th Century and have consulted many primary, documentary sources on the matter.  Secondary and tertiary sources are less useful.  But I'm also being driven into addressing multiple, specific individuals, all angry over what I have stated, including remarks increasingly leaning toward personal attacks.  Some overlap may occur under such circumstances.  But if you want me to go, how shall I address those who are about to go on the attack? Well, I can see the writing on the wall.  I'm sure the ban-hammer is coming soon, anyway.

Your voice is as important as everyone elses. It's important to remember that, I appreciate yours and others opinions. I think we all have our learning curves. I'm sorry for quoting you so much, and I appreciate your replies.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, what is the point of the wiki quote?

I posted too quickly, the bottom line I guess.

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, MormonMason said:

You cannot get much clearer than the above from the minutes of the Church.  President Young and all present did not care about one's color, and so stated that it was not the reason for the ban.  McCary and others of African descent not being able to hold the priesthood, while some did both earlier and during the ban, was not based on the color of the skin.

2 hours ago, MormonMason said:

Still doesn't change the fact that [the ban] was not based on skin color, as was stated in the 1847 Church Council. 

2 hours ago, MormonMason said:

Brigham Young himself stated that it was not about the skin color.  He also stated in a Church Council that he and the Church of the time did not care about the color.  All those present agreed with that statement and it was recorded.

You keep misrepresenting this source. Brigham Young was not stating anything about the priesthood ban in March 1847 because there was no priesthood ban yet.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree completely.  The doctrine is clearly in the Books of Abraham and Moses.

Why then is it not possible for general authorities and scholars to find it there?  Because it must be read into those passages, and unstated assumptions must be made.  The same applies to the Book of Mormon.  I had a racist roommate at BYU who tried to justify his apriori racist beliefs in that ad hoc fashion, and he even preached racism and published poetry on it.  His belief was strong, but he was completely wrong.

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps they were looking for a revelation to Joseph or Brigham as in the D&C.

I doubt that Pres McKay was that stupid.  He well understood the nature of revelation -- that it did not need to be recorded in the D&C.  Indeed, most revelations are not recorded in the D&C.  He and his associates looked carefully through the LDS Archives, and could find no justification whatever for the priesthood ban.  The only reason that Pres McKay didn't just begin ordaining Africans immediately was that his close friend Joseph Fielding Smith advised him that a revelation was necessary.  McKay heeded his colleague, which was probably the wisest course.  It is so sad that the bulk of the Mormon people allowed their personal racism to overwhelm the Gospel as taught to them by Joseph Smith.

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And today the "official theology" of the Church may match Orson, but that makes it neither more true nor more correct.

I am merely pointing out the irony that a racist policy was firmly believed by many of those listening to Brigham was simply wrong at the outset.  Orson Pratt just happened to be correct in this instance.  That doesn't make him correct on all things, but does make him a hero for standing up for the truth in contrast to those who so strongly accepted racist opinion.  I am well aware that such racist opinion was the norm at that time, and people tried to justify it using anything they could find.  Evangelicals were certain that the Bible justified racism, but that was what scholars call eisegesis, and it reflected their folkloric theology, just as it did among Mormons.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why then is it not possible for general authorities and scholars to find it there?  Because it must be read into those passages, and unstated assumptions must be made.  The same applies to the Book of Mormon.  I had a racist roommate at BYU who tried to justify his apriori racist beliefs in that ad hoc fashion, and he even preached racism and published poetry on it.  His belief was strong, but he was completely wrong.

I doubt that Pres McKay was that stupid.  He well understood the nature of revelation -- that it did not need to be recorded in the D&C.  Indeed, most revelations are not recorded in the D&C.  He and his associates looked carefully through the LDS Archives, and could find no justification whatever for the priesthood ban.  The only reason that Pres McKay didn't just begin ordaining Africans immediately was that his close friend Joseph Fielding Smith advised him that a revelation was necessary.  McKay heeded his colleague, which was probably the wisest course.  It is so sad that the bulk of the Mormon people allowed their personal racism to overwhelm the Gospel as taught to them by Joseph Smith.

I am merely pointing out the irony that a racist policy was firmly believed by many of those listening to Brigham was simply wrong at the outset.  Orson Pratt just happened to be correct in this instance.  That doesn't make him correct on all things, but does make him a hero for standing up for the truth in contrast to those who so strongly accepted racist opinion.  I am well aware that such racist opinion was the norm at that time, and people tried to justify it using anything they could find.  Evangelicals were certain that the Bible justified racism, but that was what scholars call eisegesis, and it reflected their folkloric theology, just as it did among Mormons.

Bravo!

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

MM, if  I am following your reasoning, your point is that it was lineage or blood heritage as it was viewed then that was the determining factor.   And since lineage is used to discriminate in the Bible, this means discrimination in the case of the Priesthood ban should be viewed as legitimately from God for those who accept biblical discrimination as from God.

Not to mention that the way genetics works, it doesn't take much to have lots, and lots of people in your lineage. For instance the darker skin of Spaniards and Portuguese can in part but seen as remnant of the genetics of Islamic invasions centuries ago. Likewise many eastern European features are due to invasions from Asia centuries ago. Given that of course the Spanish and so forth didn't limit their influence to southern Europe this makes it very, very likely many Europeans have African descent if you go back a ways. The whole appeal to descent makes very little sense. Of course then people say majority descent, but that still doesn't make a lot of sense either.

Further as others have noted, if you aren't of one of the 12 tribes of Israel you're adopted in. In the 19th century it was viewed as the Holy Ghost literally changing your blood and lineage. (Again this doesn't make much sense - I doubt anyone's DNA changed) But if you could have that for baptism and patriarchal blessings wouldn't that completely undermine the lineage based priesthood ban? 

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We do have the revelation on which the ban is based.  For better or for worse the ban originated from the Book of Abraham (and Moses) teachings.

And Joseph produced them.  He also made numerous statements that would be considered racist today that weren't later recollections.

The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham just like polygamy.  

But just like polygamy the doctrinal background leading to the ban and its beginning implementation came under Joseph.

 

Correction:  Brigham Young did not start polygamy.  JS did, as early as 1833.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I posted too quickly, the bottom line I guess.

Thanks for the clarification.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Correction:  Brigham Young did not start polygamy.  JS did, as early as 1833.

I said Brigham made it official church policy but Joseph started it.  Check again.

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I doubt that Pres McKay was that stupid.  He well understood the nature of revelation -- that it did not need to be recorded in the D&C.  Indeed, most revelations are not recorded in the D&C.  He and his associates looked carefully through the LDS Archives, and could find no justification whatever for the priesthood ban.  The only reason that Pres McKay didn't just begin ordaining Africans immediately was that his close friend Joseph Fielding Smith advised him that a revelation was necessary.  McKay heeded his colleague, which was probably the wisest course.  It is so sad that the bulk of the Mormon people allowed their personal racism to overwhelm the Gospel as taught to them by Joseph Smith.

Not sure it was the wisest course nor that a revelation was necessary. But there were other complications. Had McKay rather than Kimball changed the policy I think we'd have been in a much better place as it would have pre-dated the big changes in the civil rights movement. With the date of 1978 we were rather late to the game. 

Of course those arguing revelation (not JFS but more broadly) often say there was a reason for the ban, even if they think Brigham's rhetoric theologically suspect. Those who see it as a purely racist mistake disagree. I personally am more agnostic on the issue. I think Brigham clearly is wrong, but it also seems hard to believe God just forgot about people. So I think there's more going on we just don't understand.

One plausible theory (and perhaps this lay behind JFS views - I don't know) is that just as now the policy causes testimonies to be shaken in the 1960's the opposite might have been true. Likewise racism was so strong then, even among LDS, to a degree I think we have a hard time even fathoming, that adopting the civil rights critique would have caused a major apostasy akin to what happened with polygamy's cessation.

Edited May 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure it was the wisest course nor that a revelation was necessary. But there were other complications. Had McKay rather than Kimball changed the policy I think we'd have been in a much better place as it would have pre-dated the big changes in the civil rights movement. With the date of 1978 we were rather late to the game. 

True enough, but bear in mind that the Brethren prize unanimity in decision-making above all else, and McKay would have been violating that elementary understanding.  Things were far different when Spencer Kimball had everyone in agreement.

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Of course those arguing revelation (not JFS but more broadly) often say there was a reason for the ban, even if they think Brigham's rhetoric theologically suspect. Those who see it as a purely racist mistake disagree. I personally am more agnostic on the issue. I think Brigham clearly is wrong, but it also seems hard to believe God just forgot about people. So I think there's more going on we just don't understand.

Lots of Jews have a very hard time understanding why God allowed the Holocaust.  Why didn't he intervene?  There may indeed be more going on than we realize.

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

One plausible theory (and perhaps this lay behind JFS views - I don't know) is that just as now the policy causes testimonies to be shaken in the 1960's the opposite might have been true. Likewise racism was so strong then, even among LDS, to a degree I think we have a hard time even fathoming, that adopting the civil rights critique would have caused a major apostasy akin to what happened with polygamy's cessation.

Perhaps so, but I would have preferred to see some of the Brethren there on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, March 7, 1965.  By the way, the Bridge was named after a Grand Dragon of the KKK.

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree completely.  The doctrine is clearly in the Books of Abraham and Moses.

Perhaps they were looking for a revelation to Joseph or Brigham as in the D&C.

And today the "official theology" of the Church may match Orson, but that makes it neither more true nor more correct.

Regarding what is, and is not "clearly" in the Book of Abraham, see Nibley, Abraham in Egypt:

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.

Question: But Ham was a righteous man and, like his father Noah, even “walked with God” (Moses 8:27).

Answer: The tradition was widespread and persistent among the ancient Jews that the royal and priestly succession of Ham was made void through the transgression of his male descendants, Cainan, Cush, Nimrod, all of whom broke the covenant and forfeited the priesthood by laying unworthy claims to it. Some accounts say it was Ham himself who sinned (the story of the stolen garment); some say it was Cush, some Ham’s younger son Canaan, some Nimrod (this is the commonest); but all agreed that something went wrong that broke the line.⁴¹⁶

Question: But why the curse on the land? (Abraham 1:24).

Answer: It means, exactly as in the Book of Mormon, that those who dwell in the land will be cursed if they do not follow God’s counsels and blessed if they do.⁴¹⁷ As Noah was apportioning out the lands, according to the book of Jubilees, he pronounced a curse on any of his descendants who should defile the land given him by God through iniquity;⁴¹⁸ most explicitly he warned Canaan—a bull’s-eye for Abraham (Abraham 1:21—24). This is the standard curse on any promised land (Alma 37:28, etc). There is one element of the Old World curse, however, that we should mention. In the traditions of Ham, Canaan, and Cain, which are connected in various ways, there is constant reference to sexual promiscuity, which definitely has something to do with the curse. Thus we are told that Nimrod slew his father Canaan and married his mother Sachlas, thus launching his rule on a matriarchal footing and introducing that fatal triangle which is the abomination of the ancients. “The seed of Noah,” says a recently found source, “followed after the sons of Sachlas, going against the will of Noah in their pride, and so perverted the whole population.”⁴¹⁹ Another recent discovery tells us that Satan himself rested his claim on a matriarchal line, as do his followers, “Canaan and Cain, who is also Re (the Sun).”⁴²⁰ This surprising equating of the Hebrew Cain to the Egyptian Re in a writing attributed to John points to some very old traditions. Whether or not the story of “Re and the Sun’s Eye” is of Canaanite origin, as Cyrus Gordon maintains,⁴²¹ the Egyptian story of Astarte establishes definite connections and seems to go back even to distant Hurrian and Hittite flood legends.⁴²² In Abraham 1:21—27 we certainly see something of that confusion that results from the mingling of patriarchal and matriarchal claims that left the pharaohs forever in doubt as to just where they stood on authority.

     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 [the pawt], 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. 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 (Abraham 1:26—27).

Question: Why could they not have it?

Answer: Because, as noted, it came through a matriarchal succession, the first pharaoh being “the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal” (Abraham 1:25). Pharaoh was of a more righteous line than the sons of Ham, but daughters do not transmit patriarchal succession. In all of this, please note, there is no word of race or color, though that has been the main point of attack on the Book of Abraham by the enemies of the Prophet.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1093&index=14

Regarding the Curse of Noah, and various historical interpretations which turn out to be an inheritance produced by Western Culture, and not an LDS invention, see the detailed review by Stirling Adams from BYU Studies.  It is intellectually irresponsible to discuss the priesthood issue in LDS history without considering the cultural baggage members brought into the new faith.

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

And regarding the passage in the Book of Moses, which does not mention priesthood, many years ago, Kerry Shirts pointed out that 1 Enoch, the Animal Apocalyse, includes a parable including black bulls and white bulls and oxen and such that does, associating the black bulls with Canaanites (not black Africans) at the very least, raise questions to consider along with a range of Ancient Middle eastern expressions that Nibley and Sorenson pointed out decades ago.  It was a non LDS Enoch scholar who pointed that out to Kerry.  (The name eludes me at the moment, but   And there was also this on Book of Mormon passages.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=6

Which prompted me to start a thread a while back.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding what is, and is not "clearly" in the Book of Abraham, see Nibley, Abraham in Egypt:

Too bad Joseph and Brigham didn't read their Nibley.

The question at hand in this thread is where the doctrinal origin of the priesthood ban came from.

I'll say again that I believe Joseph and Brigham got the belief from the Books of Abraham and Moses.  They may have been academically wrong in their interpretation of these revelatory documents but interpretation is a different topic than attribution.

Edited May 11, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Kevin Christensen]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Too bad Joseph and Brigham didn't read their Nibley.

The question at hand in this thread is where the doctrinal origin of the priesthood ban came from.

I'll say again that I believe Joseph and Brigham got the belief from the Books of Abraham and Moses.  They may have been academically wrong in their interpretation of these revelatory documents but interpretation is a different topic than attribution.

That is exactly why I keep linking to Stirling's essential BYU Studies article, to show the culture history of the interpretation of the curse on Cain and Ham, that is predates Mormonism and is therefore an LDS inheritance, not an LDS invention.  The cultural history explains the misinterpretation of Abraham and Moses, which, without that pre-existing framework to distort things, do not say what defenders of the ban and critics of Abraham and Moses, have claimed, relative to the ban. 

Years before Stirling's article, I got a hint of what had been going on when I read an account of an 1820s debate between Atheist Robert Owen and Alexander Campbell's father, wherein Campbell senior had invoked Noah's curse on Ham, and the presence of slavery in America, as proof of the existence of God.

Talking about the Book of Abraham and ignoring Nibley is, at this late date, 38 years after he published his close reading of the key passage, irresponsible.  And talking about Brigham Young without mentioning Elijah Able and Walker Lewis and the cultural baggage that anyone born in the United States at that time acquired by virtue of not being born in the 20th or 21st century, is also irresponsible.  It leaves beams in our own eye, and has consequences for any possibility of seeing clearly.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

That is exactly why I keep linking to Stirling's essential BYU Studies article, to show the culture history of the interpretation of the curse on Cain and Ham, that is predates Mormonism and is therefore an LDS inheritance, not an LDS invention.  The cultural history explains the misinterpretation of Abraham and Moses, which, without that pre-existing framework to distort things, do not say what defenders of the ban and critics of Abraham and Moses, have claimed, relative to the ban. 

Years before Stirling's article, I got a hint of what had been going on when I read an account of an 1820s debate between Atheist Robert Owen and Alexander Campbell's father, wherein Campbell senior had invoked Noah's curse on Ham, and the presence of slavery in America, as proof of the existence of God.

Talking about the Book of Abraham and ignoring Nibley is, at this late date, 38 years after he published his close reading of the key passage, irresponsible.  And talking about Brigham Young without mentioning Elijah Able and Walker Lewis and the cultural baggage that anyone born in the United States at that time acquired by virtue of not being born in the 20th or 21st century, is also irresponsible.  It leaves beams in our own eye, and has consequences for any possibility of seeing clearly.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

So is there any evidence in any of the historical records of Joseph, Brigham, or the Church held racially motivated religious views before the coming forth of the Book of Abraham?

Did they hold that "cultural baggage" prior to the receipt of that inspired document and can we show it?