The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[Jeanne]

1 hour 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.

As Prophets though, would there be a reason why Our Father in Heaven..not correct those intepretations?

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Jeanne said:

As Prophets though, would there be a reason why Our Father in Heaven..not correct those intepretations?

He did.  In 1978.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

He did.  In 1978.

☺️Well...better late than never!

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

What does "racially motivated religious views" mean in this context?  If you read Stirling's essay, and the books he was reviewing, you ought to see that the cultural inheritance of the particular view has nothing to with their personal motivation.  It was the water in which they swam, not something they thought much about, not something that they could consider from an outside perspective.

Regarding the cultural baggage,  yes, I know of one place in TPJS where Joseph Smith repeats the same argument about Noah's curse on Ham that Alexander Campbell's father has used before the First Vision occurred.  (I'm away from my books, but it's not hard to find in TPJS, and Early Mormon Parallels has the material from Campbell.  And Stirling's review has much more of the same and points to a range of sources.)  Joseph did not attend the debate, and Alexander Campbell did not originate that reading of the Bible story.  This was simply how people read the Bible in America, but the Americans brought that view with them, and did not invent it.  The Hebrews who wrote the story did not invent or intend the reading, but rather,  those who participated in the much later slave trade did.  If 2 Nephi 25:1-5 is correct in saying that culture makes a difference, if Jesus is correct in saying soil and nurture and time can radically change the harvest coming from the same seeds (expressly, "words"), if different bottles make a difference in what happens to the wine, then the historical context and the historical horizons of texts and interpreters make a difference. 

Nibley's work is important in showing that the Book of Abraham, read closely, does not justify the use to which some LDS put the text.   Some LDS misread the text due to cultural conditioning that pre-dates Mormonism.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited May 11, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, MormonMason said:

Brigham Young himself stated that it was not about the skin color. 

He said it was about the curse.  What was the curse?

Quote

 

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, pp. 142-143:

When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood and of coming into the Kingdom of God and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity.

 

Quote

 

Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855:

The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.

 

Quote

 

Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852:

Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

 

Quote

 

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291:

Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness?  It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

 

 

And, the first presidency in 1949 continued to teach this:

Quote

 

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

- First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

 

 

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

The question could be how much did Joseph and company influence the curse doctrine that is laid out in the BoA too?  

[stemelbow]

19 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.

 

The scriptural teaching of race origins found in the BoA, Moses and the BoM are embarrassing.  Not only because it's racism plain and simple, but because they are so far off reality it's absurd.  The whole fo the concepts found in these works speaks far more to Joseph's trained environment than anything else.  Brigham didn't pull this stuff out of his caboose, but no doubt "felt inspired" to install the ban due to the teachings that Joseph was wrong about and thus created myths about.  

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The question could be how much did Joseph and company influence the curse doctrine that is laid out in the BoA too?  

A valid question, and one that the academic attribution of those beliefs to the culture of the time gives credence.

It's a chicken and egg issue.

Did the combining of racist ideals and religious doctrine come from the culture or the sacred texts or both?  Did the racist sounding verses in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price come from Joseph's cultural beliefs or did the interpretation of those verses lead to the beliefs?

Were the racist ideas held by Joseph and Brigham the source of the doctrinal belief or the result of the doctrinal belief?  Or a bit of both?

[Exiled]

I side with those who believe the race ban came from the mind of man and was the product of our racist past.  The early church leaders, including Joseph Smith, were definitely influenced by the overall society from which they came and that society wanted to separate the races into classes.  So, it isn't surprising that the Book of Abraham, Moses and the Book of Mormon would contain these race-based doctrines.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I side with those who believe the race ban came from the mind of man and was the product of our racist past.  The early church leaders, including Joseph Smith, were definitely influenced by the overall society from which they came and that society wanted to separate the races into classes.  So, it isn't surprising that the Book of Abraham, Moses and the Book of Mormon would contain these race-based doctrines.

The cause was as much the member's, including Brigham's, penchant to read the scriptures so literally and treat them as if they came directly from God.  Why'd they do that?  Cause Joseph told them to?  Why'd he tell them too?  Well he was taught to do that with scripture.  That's what you do.  

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

That's a really, really good point. As I recall (sorry books not available to double check) the policy almost was ended in 1948 but for one apostle.

I think the whole blacks and the priesthood mess suggests that perhaps that unanimity isn't the inherent good that people assume.

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Yes but the analogy breaks down since, as our critics often bring up, in this case it's prophets who purportedly are spiritual and communing regularly with God. No one expects the Nazis to listen to God due to their inherent wickedness. It seems it's that problem that's such an issue.

Quote

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.

Yup. Unfortunate there was tension with Benson who, due to his John Birch sympathies, was preaching that the civil rights movement was a conspiracy by the Soviets. The afore mentioned desire for unanimity kept many of the Apostles from espousing strong positive support for the civil rights movement. There were Mormons there of course. Romney (the father of the soon to be Senator) was definitely a supporter for instance.

It's definitely a place where I think we should have had more of a role than we did.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a really, really good point. As I recall (sorry books not available to double check) the policy almost was ended in 1948 but for one apostle.

I think the whole blacks and the priesthood mess suggests that perhaps that unanimity isn't the inherent good that people assume.

Yes but the analogy breaks down since, as our critics often bring up, in this case it's prophets who purportedly are spiritual and communing regularly with God. No one expects the Nazis to listen to God due to their inherent wickedness. It seems it's that problem that's such an issue.

Yup. Unfortunate there was tension with Benson who, due to his John Birch sympathies, was preaching that the civil rights movement was a conspiracy by the Soviets. The afore mentioned desire for unanimity kept many of the Apostles from espousing strong positive support for the civil rights movement. There were Mormons there of course. Romney (the father of the soon to be Senator) was definitely a supporter for instance.

It's definitely a place where I think we should have had more of a role than we did.

Good point...the unanimity was maybe a thorn among some roses there.  A shame, too.  Should there ever be a process by which the Prophet is a final voice?  Seems like maybe there should be in some cases. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

I think the evidence is Joseph didn't since he was ordaining black men like Able. Most of Brigham's comments arise after the work on the Book of Abraham had largely stopped. However I think it clear that the use of the Book of Abraham as an apologetic for the practice comes much later. I'm pretty skeptical Joseph interpreted the curse in the Book of Abraham as tied to slavery or the like. Part of that though gets into how one interprets his three levels of priesthood particularly the patriarchal priesthood. The old Andy Ehat model isn't as popular today and Jonathan Stapley in his recently released book defends a model of cosmological priesthood many accept.

 Brigham and others in the late 1840's and Utah period defend it based upon the southern slavery apologetic where Cain is cursed. The doctrine then gets tied to Joseph later on in the Utah period by people claiming they heard it from Joseph. There are pretty compelling reasons to be skeptical of those accounts though. As Jonathan notes Brigham isn't merely using the southern apologetic but expanding it in terms of what he calls the cosmological priesthood. (Basically the temple and idea that it's a whole sealed community that is saved)

My guess is that Brigham held his racist views prior to the 1847-1849 era. He was particularly nutso about interracial marriage, which some think was behind the whole mess. That likely was a view he got in his youth I suspect, although again so far as I know there's no evidence for that. I know Jonathan disagrees, but I'd be shocked if Brigham didn't already accept the southern apologetic in the 1830's although I don't know of evidence for that. 

As for the Church, the converts were products of their times. Even deeply progressive people for the era like Lincoln would be considered raging racists by contemporary standards. So yes, they were all racist. Some merely less so than others. Even Joseph Smith, who seems quite progressive compared to Brigham Young harbors some quite racist views. Although there things are somewhat complex since some of his comments may have been trying to placate Missouri opposition to the Mormons.

Edited May 11, 2018 by clarkgoble
Fixed misspellings

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Good point...the unanimity was maybe a thorn among some roses there.  A shame, too.  Should there ever be a process by which the Prophet is a final voice?  Seems like maybe there should be in some cases. 

There are often tensions between the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 not to mention between individual apostles. These issues seem to be less of an issue in recent decades. I think the last real pronounced tension was between Oaks and Packer on dealing with controversies in the early 90's. Before that Benson was the biggest controversy. (I should say that I think Benson was a deeply spiritual and sincere person - but he also accepted a lot of goofy conspiracy theories)

I actually tend to think the President should have a bit more authority. I think God works on him differently than the quorum as a whole. I think ironically you can actually see that with Pres. Benson once he became the President. 

One problem I think the unanimity approach has is that when you get an apostle who is quite outspoke they tend to have much more influence than the rest - including the President. I think you saw that with Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Boyd K. Packer and others. The membership then can get confused as to what is normative when others aren't as outspoken with differing views. Again that's not a knock on those particular apostles. If anything they're doing what I think more apostles should do.

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a really, really good point. As I recall (sorry books not available to double check) the policy almost was ended in 1948 but for one apostle.

If you get a chance I"d love to see that.  I didn't know this.

It's weird that they were so adamant about it if all but one wanted to see it end in 1949 when they put out a First Presidency message on the topic.  Really odd, if it was just an apostle that disagreed.  

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the whole blacks and the priesthood mess suggests that perhaps that unanimity isn't the inherent good that people assume.

Yes but the analogy breaks down since, as our critics often bring up, in this case it's prophets who purportedly are spiritual and communing regularly with God. No one expects the Nazis to listen to God due to their inherent wickedness. It seems it's that problem that's such an issue.

Yup. Unfortunate there was tension with Benson who, due to his John Birch sympathies, was preaching that the civil rights movement was a conspiracy by the Soviets. The afore mentioned desire for unanimity kept many of the Apostles from espousing strong positive support for the civil rights movement. There were Mormons there of course. Romney (the father of the soon to be Senator) was definitely a supporter for instance.

I'm not sure if you are seeing history with rose colored glasses or not on this stuff.  I've had a different understanding of these things.  Where do you get the idea that there were apostles that supported the civil rights movement?  Are we thinking if any Hugh B Brown?

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's definitely a place where I think we should have had more of a role than we did.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The scriptural teaching of race origins found in the BoA, Moses and the BoM are embarrassing.  Not only because it's racism plain and simple, but because they are so far off reality it's absurd.  The whole fo the concepts found in these works speaks far more to Joseph's trained environment than anything else.  Brigham didn't pull this stuff out of his caboose, but no doubt "felt inspired" to install the ban due to the teachings that Joseph was wrong about and thus created myths about.  

I don't think there's much evidence at all that Brigham's views here came from Joseph. I think Brigham already had them and then tried to reconcile them and work out the implications when combined with the later Nauvoo teachings. (And one should note that Brigham often wasn't in Nauvoo when such matters were taught)

Anyway, the priesthood talked about in the Book of Abraham in Joseph's terms clearly isn't the priesthood we normally think about it. It's the patriarchal priesthood. Further the curse in Abraham isn't tied to Cain but to Noah cursing his son. While it's completely understandable why some would tie this interpretively to the southern apologetic, technically there's nothing in the text itself making that connection. It's speculative and, in my view, completely wrong due to the complexities with regards to priesthood in late Nauvoo and even into Utah. Throw out the nonsense southern apologetic on Cain and it completely disintegrates. 

Again for those who adopt a fairly naive hermeneutic on how to read scripture I think it's understandable why people make the connection. However as Kevin noted it actually makes far less sense when you start asking questions.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think there's much evidence at all that Brigham's views here came from Joseph. I think Brigham already had them and then tried to reconcile them and work out the implications when combined with the later Nauvoo teachings. (And one should note that Brigham often wasn't in Nauvoo when such matters were taught)

Anyway, the priesthood talked about in the Book of Abraham in Joseph's terms clearly isn't the priesthood we normally think about it. It's the patriarchal priesthood. Further the curse in Abraham isn't tied to Cain but to Noah cursing his son. While it's completely understandable why some would tie this interpretively to the southern apologetic, technically there's nothing in the text itself making that connection. It's speculative and, in my view, completely wrong due to the complexities with regards to priesthood in late Nauvoo and even into Utah. Throw out the nonsense southern apologetic on Cain and it completely disintegrates. 

Again for those who adopt a fairly naive hermeneutic on how to read scripture I think it's understandable why people make the connection. However as Kevin noted it actually makes far less sense when you start asking questions.

I think you're taking things way too literally.  In the end it'd probably come back to bite you.  But I suppose we should see.  You keep repeating "southern apologetic" and seem intent on distancing Joseph from the interpretation.  Kevin point out one quote from Joseph that seems to support the same or similar interpretation Brigham claimed was from God.  The whole notion that these scriptures are teaching anything pertinent to reality regarding skin color and race is silly.  it seems Joseph was as good at creating myth, when the Lamanites were cursed with a darker skin and Noah cursing his son, as anyone.  

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you get a chance I"d love to see that.  I didn't know this.

Actually hold on that. I may be conflating it with the 1969 attempt when Harold B. Lee was absent and Hugh B. Brown attempted to end it. Let me see if I can find it before quoting me on this. I'll fully confess this is a part of history I don't study as much so things aren't as fresh in my memory.

Edit: I'm mixing up elements of the 1969 attempt with the 1948 change allowing anyone with black skin but who aren't African to get the priesthood. That was under George Albert Smith. Of course in reality most of the Brazilians authorized were descendants of Portuguese slaves. So it gets at the inconsistencies. 

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure if you are seeing history with rose colored glasses or not on this stuff.  I've had a different understanding of these things.  Where do you get the idea that there were apostles that supported the civil rights movement?  Are we thinking if any Hugh B Brown?

Hugh B. Brown is an obvious one. But if your point was that most of the brethren from more liberals like McKay to conservatives like Benson were not exactly adopting civil rights views I completely agree. That more than anything else made the revelation difficult and if anything makes the 1978 revelation that much more from God since it went against many of their strongly held beliefs.

Edited May 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I think you're taking things way too literally.  In the end it'd probably come back to bite you.  But I suppose we should see.  You keep repeating "southern apologetic" and seem intent on distancing Joseph from the interpretation.  Kevin point out one quote from Joseph that seems to support the same or similar interpretation Brigham claimed was from God.  The whole notion that these scriptures are teaching anything pertinent to reality regarding skin color and race is silly.  it seems Joseph was as good at creating myth, when the Lamanites were cursed with a darker skin and Noah cursing his son, as anyone.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "literally" here.

Please note that while I don't think Joseph held to the southern apologetic,  I also think he was a product of his times. My point is that the patriarchal nature of the priesthood in Abraham matters. The Melchezedek Priesthood just isn't patriarchal in that sense. Now there are other ways to read it. As I mentioned Jonathan Stapley in his new book as a whole model in terms of what he calls the cosmological priesthood. We'll see how well that model holds up over time. Previous to Stapley's work you had the Ehat model in the 90's where he has three levels of priesthood. The cosmological was the Melchezedek and a higher order than the patriarchal. Stapley by contrast sees them as more closely tied together and more of an evolution of theology on priesthood. However I've just not had time to read Jonathan's book yet so I'm more just going by previous writings and discussions with him. So I'm loath to say too much here.

Of course a person who thinks Joseph is just making it all up will simply say all the curses are just Joseph modifying the popular views of the time. So, as you suggest, the Lamanite curse is as much a variant as the Egyptus curse or the Cain curse. I'd just note that this works only by really downplaying the pretty clear differences in the texts.

[EdGoble]

18 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.

No its not.  That is reading the text with the lens of a modern reader.  We do not really know what the context of the ban at the time of Noah was about.  There is no justification for reading into it the modern context of Brigham Young's priesthood ban.  And we do not know that the people that were black called the Canaanites had some curse on them that the mythology put on modern day blacks.  There is no reason that these things ought to be conflated.

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

No its not.  That is reading the text with the lens of a modern reader.  We do not really know what the context of the ban at the time of Noah was about.  There is no justification for reading into it the modern context of Brigham Young's priesthood ban.  And we do not know that the people that were black called the Canaanites had some curse on them that the mythology put on modern day blacks.  There is no reason that these things ought to be conflated.

Sorry, but no matter how thin Nibley (or anyone else) slices it, it's still baloney.  Joseph Smith produced (through whatever method) these verses in English.  You can try and explain why these words don't mean exactly what they say, but to English speaking readers of any era, the obvious meaning is still the most obvious one.

Quote

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.

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;

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1.11 (emphasis added)

 

We can say we don't believe that anymore, but it's disingenuous to try and pretend it doesn't say what it says.

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, MormonMason said:

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

You may be feeling some frustration, because we're not buying what you're selling.  Because you're making a distinction without a difference.

You are trying to pretend that since skin color wasn't the root cause of the ban, it therefore isn't part of the discussion.  But even if "lineage" or "race" were the root causes, once you inexorably link "lineage" and "race" to "skin color", then it's all the same thing.

Suppose I own "Cinepro's Deli and Soda Fountain" in Downtown Burbank.  Last night, I had a dream that thousands of years ago, Satan literally fathered a family of children with a human woman.  And the children were all the first to have red hair and freckles.  And so through the ages to this day, people with red hair and freckles are biologically the children of Satan.

So I make a decision that I'm no longer going to serve the Children of Satan at my Deli.  I put up a sign that says "People with red hair and freckles may not enter."  Is my discrimination based on my belief that Satan's lineage walks the earth, or is it based on hair color and skin pigmentation?  Or does it not matter, because I've linked them to be the same thing?

10 years from now, I have another dream in which I learn that I was wrong.  Red hair and freckles are not indicators of Satantic lineage.  It's just a genetic variation that has no supernatural or spiritual meaning.  I apologize for my error and take down the sign.

Now what was my discrimination based on?  If the discrimination couldn't have been based on the fact that they were the descendants of Satan (because I now know they never were), then what was it based on?

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by cinepro

[cinepro]

I'll also add that the root problem of the Priesthood Ban (and its supposed scriptural support) is also related to one of the "root causes" of the Book of Mormon.

Both the theories about Cain and the theories about New World migrations in the Book of Mormon are attempts to explain where certain groups of people came from.  Obviously, the theories about Cain and Ham and curses were meant to explain where people with black skin came from.  The theories expressed in the Book of Mormon were meant to explain where the Native Americans came from (and give them a place in the Christian narrative to boot).

Sadly, what both of those theories now have in common is that they are no longer necessary or useful.  Thankfully, we've all seemed to move beyond the theories of "curses" to explain the dark skin of Africans or Native Americans.  And while the Church hasn't officially expressed it, most members who give the issue much thought (and set aside their scripture and faith-based theories that now seem highly unlikely) seem to be pretty comfortable with the idea that the Book of Mormon isn't telling us about how the New World got populated.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

You are trying to pretend that since skin color wasn't the root cause of the ban, it therefore isn't part of the discussion.  But even if "lineage" or "race" were the root causes, once you inexorably link "lineage" and "race" to "skin color", then it's all the same thing.

While I agree with you I suspect he's thinking of the 1948 First Presidency decision that allowed people in the Philippines and Brazil and many islands to get the priesthood if it couldn't be shown they had African descent. So in the 19th century I think you're completely right. In the 20th century starting with George Albert Smith things get more tricky. Worse of course particularly in Brazil nearly everyone in question actually was of African descent. So Smith's decision more or less showed the incoherence of the policy.

30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but no matter how thin Nibley (or anyone else) slices it, it's still baloney.  Joseph Smith produced (through whatever method) these verses in English.  You can try and explain why these words don't mean exactly what they say, but to English speaking readers of any era, the obvious meaning is still the most obvious one.

That's true if and only if we're talking about a priesthood like the Melchizedek Priesthood as we practically use it today. i.e. anyone can be ordained. The Book of Abraham clearly is talking about a lineage based priesthood more akin to the Levitical yet tied to the Patriarchs. Further lineage and kingship is constantly emphasized. "I became a rightful heir...right belonging to the fathers" (1:1) There's tons more like that. Contrast this with the Melcheizedek which is "without father, without mother, without descent" (Heb 7:3) This is emphasized in Joseph's Aug 8, 1839 sermon.

• "The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of Man & organized them [I Abraham saw the intelligences which were organized before the world was] . He (Adam) is the head, was told to multiply. The Keys were given to him [Adam], and by him to others & he will have to give an account of his Stewardship, & they to him. The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, & Elias--gave the Keys to Peter, James & John on the Mount when they were transfigured before him. The Priesthood is everlasting, without beginning of days or end of years, without Father, Mother &c,--"

Now of course one could contrast this with D&C 84 where the "lineage of their fathers" is emphasized in verse 15. There are various ways to interpret all this and no one model. I mentioned Jonathan Stapley's and Andy Ehat's two models with the former getting most of the love of late. But there are other ways to read it as well. One can read it as Joseph's views changing or attempt to reconcile the differing accounts by distinguishing patriarchal priesthood from melchezedek or (as Stapley does) cosmological priesthood from hierarchal/practical.

The point is though that if we're just looking at the text of the Book of Abraham as produced it's clearly a lineage based priesthood one has the right to "according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed." That's simply not the practical Melchezedek Priesthood in the 1830's nor what we understand the temple to be (which also isn't lineage based). To simply ignore all this emphasis is to do bad exegesis IMO.

30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Obviously, the theories about Cain and Ham and curses were meant to explain where people with black skin came from.

Not sure that's obvious at all. Are you talking the 19th century theories or the Genesis theories whenever they were constructed? 

I think the main development of Cain and curses in the early 19th century were to justify American slavery in the south by southern Protestants. It's not like there's not a lot written on this and their development.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

......................... There were Mormons there of course. Romney (the father of the soon to be Senator) was definitely a supporter for instance.

It's definitely a place where I think we should have had more of a role than we did.

Yeh, now there was a man worthy of respect, George Romney.  I still remember him back in 1964 at the Republican National Convention in south San Francisco.  I was outside with the NAACP and SCLC, while George was inside being shouted down by the racist convention goers -- as he tried to put a civil rights plank in the official GOP platform.  Naturally he failed.