The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Hyksos or not, DNA testing does point to the rulers of Egypt from at least 1380 BC having roots in the Levant.

"The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans....Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians." (source)

So when we consider Egyptians in Joseph's time, we're closer to the mark if we imagine them as ancient Europeans/Anatolians, not modern Egyptians or Africans.

Joseph is supposed to have lived a century before that.

Maybe it's Europeans who actually carry the curse, then. Consider blutwurst as a sign of a cursed people.

[Rajah Manchou]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

The last of the Kyskos should have been expelled a century before Joseph's time. 

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

Joseph is supposed to have lived a century before that.

So Semite rulers a century before Joseph and Levantine rulers a century after?

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe it's Europeans who actually carry the curse

I did hear somewhere that people with red hair and freckles are biologically the children of Satan. 

[Lagrange]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I did hear somewhere that people with red hair and freckles are biologically the children of Satan. 

innit it a fact that the Devil sheself is the Star of the County Down? 

[Glenn101]

On 5/11/2018 at 3:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Prophets are not infallible conduits direct from God, and never have been.  They must first seek Him, and must be open to instruction.  All kinds of cultural baggage can be a problem.

Bruce R. McConkie said "I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality."   McConkie letter, February 19, 1981, online at  http://www.mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england .

One problem I have with this is that you are quoting a man whose has received his own share of criticism for his "Mormon Doctrine."

Another is the cognitive dissonance I have with God allowing such an supposedly egregiously wrong policy to be perpetuated for the majority of the temporal existence of the Restoration. God has indeed given His children a lot of latitude to make mistakes and recover from them. But he also has been shown to give people with whom He has called as His prophets much less latitude. Jonah was given a pretty strong course correction when he tried to run away from God's instructions to go to Ninevah and warn the denizens that city of the problems that were coming if they did not repent.

God gave Moses a bit of latitude at first when He called Moses to be a prophet, but once Moses was established, God was a lot less easy on him when he made a egregious mistake. One such instance was recorded when Moses had neglected to circumcise his son. An angel was lying in wait to kill him and that was only averted by the action of Zipporah when she performed the circumcision herself. Another instance was when Moses struck a rock with his rod to produce water for a thirsty Israelite community rather than commanding it in the name of God to produce water. This may seem like a rather petty thing to people reading the passage but for some reason it seemed important enough to God that He denied Moses the privilege of entering the promised land with the Children of Israel.

There are several other examples also. And in those cases we have the record of those mistakes for our benefit.

If the ban were a mistake of cosmic proportions as has been alleged as some, there are some serious implications for the church and or God. Taking the course that the Church is true but the ban was wrong and entirely man made, we have a problem that either God told Brigham that the ban was wrong and Brigham had the temerity to ignore God's instructions but God did nothing to correct Brigham in this. Or God knew that it was wrong but did nothing to correct Brigham and allowed a gross injustice to to be perpetuated for generations without God, through revelation, going on record to advise us that the policy was not from Him.

The same principle applies to polygamy also.

Glenn

Edited May 13, 2018 by Glenn101

[Calm]

Quote

Jonah was given a pretty strong course correction when he tried to run away from God's instructions to go to Ninevah and warn the denizens that city of the problems that were coming if they did not repent.

How many years did God allow Nineveh to wander prior to that however?

I think there is likely a difference in how hands on God is between error being a result of refusing to obey a given instruction and error that is a result of coming up with ideas on how to live one's life on one's own.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Calm

[CMZ]

Some day maybe people will understand this better. For now everyone talks in circles around it and never gets to the truth. When it's truly understood it'll be seen that no racism was involved... even if some individuals that had some involvement with it at different points had their own unfortunate traces of racism.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

One problem I have with this is that you are quoting a man whose has received his own share of criticism for his "Mormon Doctrine."

Another is the cognitive dissonance I have with God allowing such an supposedly egregiously wrong policy to be perpetuated for the majority of the temporal existence of the Restoration. God has indeed given His children a lot of latitude to make mistakes and recover from them. But he also has been shown to give people with whom He has called as His prophets much less latitude. Jonah was given a pretty strong course correction when he tried to run away from God's instructions to go to Ninevah and warn the denizens that city of the problems that were coming if they did not repent.

God gave Moses a bit of latitude at first when He called Moses to be a prophet, but once Moses was established, God was a lot less easy on him when he made a egregious mistake. One such instance was recorded when Moses had neglected to circumcise his son. An angel was lying in wait to kill him and that was only averted by the action of Zipporah when she performed the circumcision herself. Another instance was when Moses struck a rock with his rod to produce water for a thirsty Israelite community rather than commanding it in the name of God to produce water. This may seem like a rather petty thing to people reading the passage but for some reason it seemed important enough to God that He denied Moses the privilege of entering the promised land with the Children of Israel.

There are several other examples also. And in those cases we have the record of those mistakes for our benefit.

If the ban were a mistake of cosmic proportions as has been alleged as some, there are some serious implications for the church and or God. Taking the course that the Church is true but the ban was wrong and entirely man made, we have a problem that either God told Brigham that the ban was wrong and Brigham had the temerity to ignore God's instructions but God did nothing to correct Brigham in this. Or God knew that it was wrong but did nothing to correct Brigham and allowed a gross injustice to to be perpetuated for generations without God, through revelation, going on record to advise us that the policy was not from Him.

The same principle applies to polygamy also.

Glenn

I agree with this.  There are far too many problems with the idea the ban was entirely man-made.  And I have yet to see any real evidence that would remove God from it.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

One problem I have with this is that you are quoting a man whose has received his own share of criticism for his "Mormon Doctrine."

And those criticisms were fully justified, coming as they did from his colleagues.  Elder McConkie was able to learn from his mistakes and to openly admit it.

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Another is the cognitive dissonance I have with God allowing such an supposedly egregiously wrong policy to be perpetuated for the majority of the temporal existence of the Restoration. ............................................

If the ban were a mistake of cosmic proportions as has been alleged as some, there are some serious implications for the church and or God.

I don't know what your "cosmic proportions" means, but the ban was certainly a mistake.  It was also a mistake for the Jews to have disobeyed God, which resulted in their mass ejection and exile from the Holy Land for nigh on 2,000 years.  Why would God do that to his Chosen People?  According to your theory, God should have corrected that problem post haste.  It is false doctrine that God always intercedes immediately.  He is very patient, and tends to wait for people to become ripe in their iniquity, or waits to see them repent (in the case of Israel of the Exodus, God angrily condemned an entire generation to die before Israel was permitted to enter the Holy Land).

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Taking the course that the Church is true but the ban was wrong and entirely man made, we have a problem that either God told Brigham that the ban was wrong and Brigham had the temerity to ignore God's instructions but God did nothing to correct Brigham in this. Or God knew that it was wrong but did nothing to correct Brigham and allowed a gross injustice to to be perpetuated for generations without God, through revelation, going on record to advise us that the policy was not from Him.

Once again, it is a notion from lala land that God is going to immediately correct human error.  It is not so much that the "Church is true" as that the Gospel is true.  The Church is the membership, which may be deeply flawed and disobedient -- failing to reject racism, and thus rejecting the Gospel.  Orson Pratt tried to get through to them, but they weren't having any of it.  Racism was simply entrenched, and when Joseph died his correct understanding died with him, except for some abolitionists like my own ancestors (who fully rejected the racism of their neighbors).

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The same principle applies to polygamy also........

No it doesn't.  There is no reason to find any moral/ethical equality between these two principles.  One was an instance of clearcut human racism, and the other is actual doctrine on a sound biblical basis, which can be turned on or off according as the Lord desires.

[CMZ]

Quote

I don't know what your "cosmic proportions" means, but the ban was certainly a mistake.

We have to be careful about statements like that. The ban began in vagary but ended in clarity. We may not be totally certain how it began (although there is indeed some historical information about it), but when we know of instances of later leaders wanting to rescind the ban but feeling that they were directed by the Lord not to yet then I think it makes it hard to claim that the ban came about due to racism. I believe other reasoning was involved (although that doesn't mean that there have never ever been some leaders with perhaps some trace of racism to them).

Edited May 13, 2018 by CMZ

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Racism was simply entrenched, and when Joseph died his correct understanding died with him, except for some abolitionists like my own ancestors (who fully rejected the racism of their neighbors).

A question I have is why these individuals were not called into positions of Church leadership where their views might have influenced policy and presumably prevented the ban. Did they happen to mention anything in journals commenting on this development over the decades between Missouri and the Utah Territory, or before and after the ban?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

A question I have is why these individuals were not called into positions of Church leadership where their views might have influenced policy and presumably prevented the ban. Did they happen to mention anything in journals commenting on this development over the decades between Missouri and the Utah Territory, or before and after the ban?

A significant part of the attacks on Mormonism was tied to the perception they were abolitionists particularly in Missouri. A compelling case could be made that some of the changes in Joseph's rhetoric during his Presidential campaign were tied to attempting to placate the enemies slightly so there wasn't quite so much fervor. While I think Brigham's views here are abhorrent, in many ways Utah stayed out of the Civil War. I wonder if things would have been different if they were abolitionists as was the tendency prior to the Missouri War. I don't know.

I admit a recurrent fantasy that a troop of Mormons heads south, frees slaves and brings them to Utah with an angel telling Brigham to shape up much as one had to tell Peter (and later Paul had to remind Peter) about Jew/Gentile issues. However those who went up against Brigham, even when they are now seen as right, usually got the short stick of it. Think of the Orson Pratt - Brigham Young disagreements. (Not on race issues but speaking more broadly) Brigham was an opinionated strong personality. He made a lot of big mistakes. However I'm not sure anyone less than Brigham could have done what he did. Which may explain why God didn't call a bunch of abolitionists. It was practical based upon what was needed for Mormon survival in the 19th century (in this view anyway).

The bigger question is less the 19th century than the 20th century. Had George Albert Smith in 1948 ended the practice the 20th century may have looked quite differently. Especially if a revelation on civil rights were emphasized to him or those who followed him. 

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with this.  There are far too many problems with the idea the ban was entirely man-made.  And I have yet to see any real evidence that would remove God from it.

If God knows as much, or more, about genetics than we currently do, then He would have known that there is no way such a "ban" could have worked back in 1852. 

The only reason the ban sounded plausible to people of that time is because they didn't know how genetics work.  It was based on ignorance, not revelation from a higher omniscient power.  If President Nelson stood up and tried to tell us that we were going to start denying the Priesthood to a group of people based on either a presumed ancient genetic line to a single person from thousands of years ago or an arbitrary trait like skin color or eye color, we would laugh him out of the room.    The only reason they didn't laugh Brigham Young down is because they didn't know better and his theories sounded plausible.

Everything else that perpetuated the ban after it was instituted by BY can be easily explained by misplaced faith and loyalty in Church leaders, and an honest reading of the scriptures.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

A question I have is why these individuals were not called into positions of Church leadership where their views might have influenced policy and presumably prevented the ban. Did they happen to mention anything in journals commenting on this development over the decades between Missouri and the Utah Territory, or before and after the ban?

No.  The ancestors I hold in high esteem for their strong moral qualities were good Methodists.  When they were preached to by a racist Methodist minister in Ohio, they all rejected him and met elsewhere -- building their own Methodist chapel elsewhere in Mansfield County, and working with their neighbors on the Underground Railroad.  That was my father's side of the family, a side with a long line of Presbyterian and Methodist ministers.  My mother (whom I miss terribly today) was from the Mormon pioneer side, and I don't actually know what their opinions on race were, except that my mother considered racism a defect which people had difficulty exorcising.  None of my aunts, uncles, or cousins ever said a racist word.  Spencer Cox, the Lt Governor of Utah, is a distant cousin of my mother, and he seems to be a highly moral man without a racist bone in his body.  Last August he said:

Quote

“People filled with rage and hate can change, but we only change when we get proximate. We only change when we get close. We only change when we dare to get close to people who are different than us and ... dare to have uncomfortable conversations.”

 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know what your "cosmic proportions" means, but the ban was certainly a mistake. 

That is something for which I do not recall there being any revelation. Brigham Young declared that it was from God and that only God could change it. You are voicing personal beliefs, it would seem.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He is very patient, and tends to wait for people to become ripe in their iniquity, or waits to see them repent (in the case of Israel of the Exodus

I was not talking about a people, as in the body of the church. I was talking about God's dealings with his chosen leaders. I gave several examples. During the times the children of Israel were "ripening in iniquity,' God continued to send His prophets to warn them of their impending course corrections. The warnings were clear and they were emphatic. Such was the case with David when he murdered (by proxy) Uriah. The condemnation came quickly, by Nathan the prophet, and it is recorded for our benefit. In the case, of the ban we have no such warnings from God's chosen prophet.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No it doesn't.  There is no reason to find any moral/ethical equality between these two principles.  One was an instance of clearcut human racism, and the other is actual doctrine on a sound biblical basis, which can be turned on or off according as the Lord desires.

Actually the principle does apply quite well. It is pretty well documented by many people that Joseph was the source of the doctrine on polygamy, while he was officially denying that he had more than one wife. Initially Joseph was reluctant to begin the practice after receiving a revelation and the command to begin the practice. So how long did Joseph procrastinate before he was given a course correction by an angel? (That is the principle to which I was referring.)

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

when Joseph died his correct understanding died with him

Quotes attributed to Joseph Smith:

 "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (HC Volume 5, Page 217)

"Tuesday, 25.—Signed deeds for lots, to Law; transacted a variety of business in the city and office. In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain." HC Volume 4, Page 501)

Oct 1841 - "I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine, but doing no harm. Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine and became intoxicated; the Lord did not forsake him in consequence thereof, for he retained all the power of his priesthood, and when he was accused by Canaan, he cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk, and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day" (HC,Volume 4, Page 446).

 March 1836 - "After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. 'And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' 'Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant' (Gen. 9:25, 26). Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel." (HC, Volume 2, Page 439).

The issue is far from settled. And it will not be settled until further revelation is received (and I personally doubt there will be any further revelation), we pass through veil into the next life, or maybe the second coming.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That is something for which I do not recall there being any revelation. Brigham Young declared that it was from God and that only God could change it. You are voicing personal beliefs, it would seem.

I was not talking about a people, as in the body of the church. I was talking about God's dealings with his chosen leaders. I gave several examples. During the times the children of Israel were "ripening in iniquity,' God continued to send His prophets to warn them of their impending course corrections. The warnings were clear and they were emphatic. Such was the case with David when he murdered (by proxy) Uriah. The condemnation came quickly, by Nathan the prophet, and it is recorded for our benefit. In the case, of the ban we have no such warnings from God's chosen prophet.

Actually the principle does apply quite well. It is pretty well documented by many people that Joseph was the source of the doctrine on polygamy, while he was officially denying that he had more than one wife. Initially Joseph was reluctant to begin the practice after receiving a revelation and the command to begin the practice. So how long did Joseph procrastinate before he was given a course correction by an angel? (That is the principle to which I was referring.)

Quotes attributed to Joseph Smith:

 "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (HC Volume 5, Page 217)

"Tuesday, 25.—Signed deeds for lots, to Law; transacted a variety of business in the city and office. In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain." HC Volume 4, Page 501)

Oct 1841 - "I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine, but doing no harm. Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine and became intoxicated; the Lord did not forsake him in consequence thereof, for he retained all the power of his priesthood, and when he was accused by Canaan, he cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk, and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day" (HC,Volume 4, Page 446).

 March 1836 - "After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. 'And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' 'Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant' (Gen. 9:25, 26). Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel." (HC, Volume 2, Page 439).

The issue is far from settled. And it will not be settled until further revelation is received (and I personally doubt there will be any further revelation), we pass through veil into the next life, or maybe the second coming.

Glenn

Too bad Joseph didn't have some information that he could read that discounts that the Bible scriptures had anything to do with black people. Too bad he didn't have that info. 

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

The Curse of Ham refers to the supposed curse upon Canaan, Ham's son, that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah. The curse occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham, the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20–27).^[1] The controversies raised by this story regarding the nature of Ham's transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over 2,000 years.^[2] The story's original purpose may have been to justify the subjection of the Canaanite people to the Israelites,^[3] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery.^[4] Nevertheless, most Christians, Muslims and Jews now disagree with such interpretation, because in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed, and race or skin color is never mentioned.^[5]

The Book of Abraham, considered scripture in the Latter Day Saint movement, says that Pharaoh was a descendant of Canaan and that he could not hold the priesthood because Noah had cursed his lineage. The LDS church connected this with the curse of Ham and used this to prevent black men from getting the priesthood.^[6]:205[7] In a 2013 online essay, the LDS Church denounced the connection. Black Mormon Tamu Smith has said that it "is not all that familiar to the LDS faithful and, often, their congregational leaders.but most Mormons remain unaware of the essay."^[8] The Book of Abraham is still considered scripture and the curse of Ham is still taught in the LDS Church.^[9][7]

 

Glenn, I remember on this board people saying Joseph Smith was against slavery, that may be somewhat true, but his words in your quotes don't make me very fond of the guy. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If God knows as much, or more, about genetics than we currently do, then He would have known that there is no way such a "ban" could have worked back in 1852. 

The only reason the ban sounded plausible to people of that time is because they didn't know how genetics work.  It was based on ignorance, not revelation from a higher omniscient power.  If President Nelson stood up and tried to tell us that we were going to start denying the Priesthood to a group of people based on either a presumed ancient genetic line to a single person from thousands of years ago or an arbitrary trait like skin color or eye color, we would laugh him out of the room.    The only reason they didn't laugh Brigham Young down is because they didn't know better and his theories sounded plausible.

Everything else that perpetuated the ban after it was instituted by BY can be easily explained by misplaced faith and loyalty in Church leaders, and an honest reading of the scriptures.

None of which addresses the doctrinal issues with a belief the ban was entirely man made.

The 1978 revelation as described by those who received it for instance becomes a doubtful end to the ban.

[Calm]

Useful info for the discussion imo, many may know of it already, but I think Russell Stevenson does a great job of pulling things together, including weaknesses in arguments.  I encourage you to read the whole blogs, a few paragraphs per blog misses tons of info:

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/05/10/not-everyone-racist-brigham-young/

Quote

Let’s take a particular racial datapoint: Africans as descendants of Cain/Ham/Canaan. For some challengers, these theories did not go far enough; an ethnologist named Buckner Payne insisted that Africans were not descended from Ham or Cain but were, indeed, animals and had “a history as blank as that of the horse or the beaver.”  Others  denied Cain-ite ancestry: scientist Benjamin Banneker, abolitionists David Walker and William Lloyd Garrison, the theologian James C.W. Pennington (mid-19th-century), anthropologist Franz Boas (late nineteenth-century), the jurist John Harlan, and the sociologist E. Franklin Frazier (early 20th-century). Winthrop Jordan has argued that the “curse of Canaan” was used to justify white serfdom. Even in the late 17th-century, William Edmundson argued that “even if it could be shown that Africans were the descendants of Ham [which Edmundson doubted], had not Christ removed the “wall of partition” that separated people?” In 1715 Elihu Coleman lobbied a similar critique, maintaining that while Africans might be the descendants of Canaan/Ham, their descendants–as per Old Testament text–should not bear their fathers’ sins.

While we do not have any extended theological treatise from Brigham Young on ethnicity, it is notable that his comments exist in a speech here, a snippet there–and fairly crude/rudimentary compared to the “deep dive” theology of his contemporary clergymen like Buckner Payne or Josiah Quincy.   Brigham Young, for all his Mormon jingoism, was not so irreducibly Mormon that he could avoid the influence of the de rigueur cottage industry theologizing about African peoples. The human mind is porous–and we ought not underestimate the capacity for economic systems (whether rooted in physical or informational commodities) to influence it over time.  But, we similarly ought not overestimate the strength of one system over the other. Few of us can pass the catechisms of our favored ideologies.

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/05/09/priesthood-ban-originated/

Quote

When did Brigham Young flip?  On what day did he (or did he?)  receive the smoking gun revelation declaring that blacks ought not receive the priesthood/temple ordination? On that very specific historical point, we are unclear.  I have examined the entirety of his 1848 letter collection, and to date, we do not know when, exactly, he moved from inclusion to exclusion. But to use that point to justify claims of vast sweeping ignorance? A basic awareness of the archival record should prompt us to say otherwise...

So, I ask: can we please stop playing coy?  We know a lot about the documentary record. Each document we have could sustain dozens of pages of analysis; collectively, they made up the core of my volume, Matt Harris’s and Newell Bringhurst’s volume, and Paul Reeve’s volume.   And if we situate Mormonism against the broader American experience–and we should–then we have a good-sized library on our hands: David Goldenberg, Stephen Haynes, Mia Bay, Amber Moulton, Angela Pulley Hudson, and Bruce Dain all have direct and documentable bearing on the Mormon historical record on race.  all And most of these documents are not confined to some archive on a mystical Jedi island; they’re available from your home computer. And with all the time/energy we spend on indexing, a few moments reading a nineteenth-century document on race won’t kill you.

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/02/10/hamming-gospel-doctrine-ham-race-old-testament/

Quote

We have covered Cain and “blackness,” probably more than it deserves. In this post, I will run through a quick and dirty discussion of Ham and “blackness.”  This explanation has, hands down, no contest, dominated racial exegesis in European Biblical scholarship until the last 50+ years. While there is more–much more–to the Noachian story, if this blog post can help form even one well-framed discussion point for a Gospel Doctrine teacher, it is worth the time. The Gospel Doctrine Manual does not so much as mention Ham’s existence (like, anywhere). Since Ham is both in Genesis and Abraham (next week’s lesson), it’s best to be prepared.

For those who want to see how one might approach teaching/discussing in Sunday School (Russell has been his ward's GD teacher though he is about to move, just in case anyone thinks this can't be done):

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/01/23/teaching-about-cain-and-race-in-lds-gospel-doctrine/

Quote

Mormons live in a new era when it comes to racial exegesis. Grandfather’s talking points about “the negro,” Cain and Ham aren’t en vogue.  “We now know,” we tell ourselves, with a breath of relief, “that African people aren’t descended from Cain.”  That early Mormon leaders accepted the Cain-African  theory as Gospel Truth (TM) is a matter of a fairly well-established history that needs no belaboring here (for a sound overview of Mormon use of the theory, see here and here). 

But beyond having a sense of what is/isn’t PC, most Latter-day Saints couldn’t articulate a good reason to set aside President Young’s theorizing, other than because The Suits Say So.  Just as often, Mormons dismiss the whole embarrassment as yet One More Reason to Believe that Prophets Make Mistakes (TM–and, if we’re feeling especially angsty, we might place it in a list alongside our other concerns).

All of this might be dismissed as an embarrassing and repulsive product of a white-dominant America.  Church leaders were men of their time, after all; can’t we afford them the longsuffering not to condemn them by contemporary standards?  This request is not unreasonable; social media discourse on matters historical generally suffers from varying degrees of presentism–ranging from milder forms (selection bias) to the blazing fever of unscrutinized condemnations from atop the lofty mount of Perspective.

But for adherent Mormons who believe that scriptural texts offer some kind of explanatory and/or moral value about the 21st-century world, talk of Cain and African identity cannot be so easily dismissed. The connection between Cain and “blackness” (whatever that means–more on that later) is enshrined in Mormon sacred text. In Joseph Smith’s translation of the King James Bible–now known as the Pearl of Great Price–he dictated...

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2017/11/27/teaching-official-declaration-2/

Quote

Today, I taught the lesson on Official Declaration #2. For most of us, it is over. Whether with grace or clumsiness or perhaps #facepalm moment (or three), we’ve taught the lesson on Official Declaration #2.
Since it deals with one of the great lines of exclusion drawn in human societies in the modern (and arguably, pre-modern age), it was a heavy load. That it took place within a community and faith system that many of us cherish, the anxiety and pain is particularly stark. Can we broach it, particularly as people of European descent? We do not know what it’s like to live in black skin. All the stories of Missouri persecutions–as searing and sympathetic as they are–will not stand up to any comparison with the black experience in America.
But not only do I think that we can broach it; I think we have an obligation to broach it. Official Declaration #2 stands alongside every other revelation in our canonized text. It initiated the growth of the Church for well over 1/6 of the world’s population. As such, it deserves sustained scrutiny.

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2017/10/31/mythbusters-official-declaration-2-edition/

Quote

We don’t do an awesome job of discussing Official Declaration #2, even though it serves as the best starting point for us to bracket off what some of us may designate The Global Era of Mormonism. It allowed men of African descent to receive ordination to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and it allowed women to receive their temple endowment (and the fact that those two changes were made in conjunction with each other should highlight for us that women ought not be seen as apart from “the priesthood” after all).  And we are right to celebrate the contributions of black Latter-day Saints; we should do it more, do it frequently, and do it gladly. If we can’t talk about a vexed racial history involving a large percentage of the human population but can talk about the miracle of the quails, the miracle of the Mantle, the Utah war, the Handcart Companies ad infinitum, shouldn’t that strike us as a little…skewed?

The time is coming soon for Gospel Doctrines classes the world over to discuss this passage of scripture that, at once,  offered exuberance and anxiety–often simultaneously.   This piece is intended to be a supplement to—not a replacement of— the Gospel Doctrine material already available to instructors. A manual can be only so all-encompassing, and as Church curriculum employee, David Marsh, urged in his interview on LDS Perspectives, we should do all the reading that we can on a gospel subject. It is not only a tolerable idea; it is a decidedly good one.

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2013/12/19/let-god-speak-us-victims-tragedy-mormon-racism/

Quote

The story of white Mormon racism gives me heartburn.  It makes me sad, tragically so. And tragedies are only possible when there’s something–something big–to lose. As Rabbi Abraham Heschel observed, though “few are guilty…all are responsible.” Deflection and projection will not do.  To paraphrase the haunting language of poet Jeremy Loveday, “the culture of violence [though I would say, “racism”] touches us all. And by dismissing perpetrators as monsters, it allows us not to analyze our own actions.”  It is the simple and sincere question asked of Jesus: “What lack [we] yet?”  Jesus did not coddle the inquirer but directed him to give up the things he valued the most in order to follow him.  The young man walked away glumly; he never had considered the kind of sacrifice that Jesus’ kingdom required.

Unfortunately, people seem reticent to ask this very question on matters of race and Mormonism. Is it because we are scared of the implications?  One commentator recently observed that [white] “Mormons have historically engaged in a pattern of blaming anyone and everyone possible for actions of Church leaders except for the leaders themselves.”  Many indeed have.  But that is not the greatest danger racism in Mormon history poses.  The greatest danger is that in our plight for self-validation, we allow ourselves “not to analyze our own actions.”  Self-victimization does nothing to bring about social change.  Instead, it cultivates an atmosphere of finger-pointing, deflection, and self-vindication.  In both our personal and institutional relationship, this only enshrines an adversarial relationship in our family and faith communities.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

That is something for which I do not recall there being any revelation. Brigham Young declared that it was from God and that only God could change it. You are voicing personal beliefs, it would seem.

Yeh, the same personal beliefs which our prophets have voiced repeatedly:

Joseph Smith said:

Quote

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.  History of the Church, 5:217.

Joseph also said:

Quote

"Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings, for 'an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage.'" (Nauvoo Neighbor, 17 April 1844).

Slaves owned by Mormons should, said Joseph in private, be brought "into a free country and set . . . free--Educate them and give them equal Rights."  Dec 30, 1842, Joseph Smith Journal.

"Nothing can reclaim the human mind from its ignorance, bigotry, superstition &c but those grand and sublime principles of equal rights and universal freedom to all men."  Joseph Smith, Jr., Minutes of the Council of Fifty.

Gordon B. Hinckley: "I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ."  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng .

Quote

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.  "Race and the Priesthood," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013).

"The Book of Mormon states, "black and white, bond and free, male and female; ... all are alike unto God" (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church's official teaching."

"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."    http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church .

Quote

I was not talking about a people, as in the body of the church. I was talking about God's dealings with his chosen leaders. I gave several examples. During the times the children of Israel were "ripening in iniquity,' God continued to send His prophets to warn them of their impending course corrections. The warnings were clear and they were emphatic. Such was the case with David when he murdered (by proxy) Uriah. The condemnation came quickly, by Nathan the prophet, and it is recorded for our benefit. In the case, of the ban we have no such warnings from God's chosen prophet.

Actually the principle does apply quite well. It is pretty well documented by many people that Joseph was the source of the doctrine on polygamy, while he was officially denying that he had more than one wife. Initially Joseph was reluctant to begin the practice after receiving a revelation and the command to begin the practice. So how long did Joseph procrastinate before he was given a course correction by an angel? (That is the principle to which I was referring.)...................................

The issue is far from settled. And it will not be settled until further revelation is received (and I personally doubt there will be any further revelation), we pass through veil into the next life, or maybe the second coming.............

Anyone can line up selective quotations, Glenn, even though the ones you cite were not written by Joseph Smith, but were "attributed" to him (as you say) by clerks compiling the History of the Church long after his death.  One of them was actually the stated personal view of Orson Hyde, not Joseph.  The facts are these:

1832 Elijah Abel, an African American, is baptized and given the priesthood in the church. He went on to serve three missions for the church as a Seventy.  Other Black men are ordained.

1833 Jackson County Missouri locals issue a manifesto suggestion they drive Mormons from the state. One of the given reasons is Mormons are "inviting free Negroes and mulattoes from other states to become Mormons, and remove and settle among us." The Mormons are expelled from Missouri.

1840 People of every color invited to worship at the Mormon Temple in Nauvoo, Ill. "Persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in his holy temple, and offer up their orisons in his sanctuary."

1842 Church prophet Joseph Smith writes that slaves should be "brought into a free county and set...free--educate them and give them equal rights."

1842 Joseph Smith writes on the subject of American slavery, "...it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people."

1844 Joseph Ball, an African American, served as president of the Boston LDS Branch. 

1844 Walker Lewis, African American abolitionist and Underground Railroad activist from Lowell, MA, is ordained a Mormon Elder.

Brigham Young did not present a specific revelation on priesthood or temple restrictions he imposed. A definitive statement wasn't made by him until 1852 in a legislative, rather than ecclesiastical forum. Governor Young declared "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."  Like the Missouri period, the Saints were externally pressured to adopt racial policies as a political compromise. At the time, this was deemed to be the best pathway to statehood.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

........................................

The 1978 revelation as described by those who received it for instance becomes a doubtful end to the ban.

In what way?  Or did you misspeak yourself here?  Or am I too ignorant to understand what is being asserted?

[Glenn101]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Glenn, I remember on this board people saying Joseph Smith was against slavery, that may be somewhat true, but his words in your quotes don't make me very fond of the guy. 

Joseph most definitely was against slavery. Phasing out slavery was one of the planks in his platform as a presidential candidate. He advocated providing slave owners with some type of compensation for freeing their slaves. Now add to that this story about Joseph.

“While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleaded that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child.” (Young Woman’s Journal, p.538)

The situations, the times, and the opinions of the people involved are complex and do not lend themselves to any one simplistic explanation. We still are seeing "through a glass darkly" as to the past and and much more so for the future. I, for one, do not feel it safe spiritually to judge Joseph or Brigham. That is God's province.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Joseph most definitely was against slavery. Phasing out slavery was one of the planks in his platform as a presidential candidate. He advocated providing slave owners with some type of compensation for freeing their slaves. Now add to that this story about Joseph.

“While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleaded that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child.” (Young Woman’s Journal, p.538)

The situations, the times, and the opinions of the people involved are complex and do not lend themselves to any one simplistic explanation. We still are seeing "through a glass darkly" as to the past and and much more so for the future. I, for one, do not feel it safe spiritually to judge Joseph or Brigham. That is God's province.

Glenn

Ok, that's more like it. Maybe Joseph was just trying to go by scripture but sadly he didn't realize the scripture was misinterpretated.

[Glenn101]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That is something for which I do not recall there being any revelation. Brigham Young declared that it was from God and that only God could change it. You are voicing personal beliefs, it would seem.

Yeh, the same personal beliefs which our prophets have voiced repeatedly:

A bit of difference. None of those quotes of personal beliefs that you cited deal with the issue of whether the ban was from God or man made.

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anyone can line up selective quotations, Glenn, even though the ones you cite were not written by Joseph Smith, but were "attributed" to him (as you say) by clerks compiling the History of the Church long after his death.  One of them was actually the stated personal view of Orson Hyde, not Joseph. 

Quite correct. However the excerpt from Volume two was in a letter written to Oliver Cowdery and I believe that it has been pretty well vetted. There is Joseph saying that there was a curse, had not been released, and was from God. That theme along with the "servant of servants" was echoed by Brigham young several times in later years.

If you will reread the the full passage concerning Orson Hyde you will find that it was Joseph's stated opinion as voiced to Orson Hyde if you are talking about the "I would confine  them by strict law to their own  species,  and put them on a national equalization" quote.

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Brigham Young did not present a specific revelation on priesthood or temple restrictions he imposed. A definitive statement wasn't made by him until 1852 in a legislative, rather than ecclesiastical forum.

I believe that he was echoing the things he had learned from Joseph Smith. I was not aware that a prophet had to speak in an ecclesiastical forum for his words to have any effect. It was in that speech that he declared the ban to be from God. That is what we all have had to deal with. It is what all prophets from that that time forth has had to deal with, until 1978. I think that maybe Brigham was reluctant to enforce the ban himself but maybe had some prodding in the matter. That is my personal belief with no documentary evidence to support that belief.

By the way, according to Lajean Purcell Carruth, the lady that has been transcribing the extant Pittman Shorthand notes that George D. Watt made of the J.O.D. speeches, Brigham Young was not the author of the "any man having one drop" quote.

It seems that the Church has left the ban but we cannot leave it alone. 😉

Glenn

[CV75]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A significant part of the attacks on Mormonism was tied to the perception they were abolitionists particularly in Missouri. A compelling case could be made that some of the changes in Joseph's rhetoric during his Presidential campaign were tied to attempting to placate the enemies slightly so there wasn't quite so much fervor. While I think Brigham's views here are abhorrent, in many ways Utah stayed out of the Civil War. I wonder if things would have been different if they were abolitionists as was the tendency prior to the Missouri War. I don't know.

I admit a recurrent fantasy that a troop of Mormons heads south, frees slaves and brings them to Utah with an angel telling Brigham to shape up much as one had to tell Peter (and later Paul had to remind Peter) about Jew/Gentile issues. However those who went up against Brigham, even when they are now seen as right, usually got the short stick of it. Think of the Orson Pratt - Brigham Young disagreements. (Not on race issues but speaking more broadly) Brigham was an opinionated strong personality. He made a lot of big mistakes. However I'm not sure anyone less than Brigham could have done what he did. Which may explain why God didn't call a bunch of abolitionists. It was practical based upon what was needed for Mormon survival in the 19th century (in this view anyway).

The bigger question is less the 19th century than the 20th century. Had George Albert Smith in 1948 ended the practice the 20th century may have looked quite differently. Especially if a revelation on civil rights were emphasized to him or those who followed him. 

This is the direction I tend to take, that the Lord sensed it was expedient to let things continue for the sake of preserving the saints in the American West (other examples from the D&C of holding off a seemingly “better” option more aligned with Gospel ideals might be the work of translation, teaching certain things from the new revelations, the redemption of Zion, Joseph’s return to the saints). This “holding off” a quicker promulgation of positives is one of the themes I pick up from the parable in Jacob 5 (also from the new wine/new bottles). I do think the 19^th century remains the pivot point as that is where the trajectory began, just as with the migration of the saints west. That said, we can never tell how things might otherwise have gone better.

I also see the ban and how long it lasted as more a function of socially-imbedded group conscience than any individuals’ mistaken theology since the latter, unacceptable as it was, only arose from and was used to justify the former. Each generation has its irredeemable blind spots, no matter how enlightened they become about their forbearers’ faults.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  The ancestors I hold in high esteem for their strong moral qualities were good Methodists.  When they were preached to by a racist Methodist minister in Ohio, they all rejected him and met elsewhere -- building their own Methodist chapel elsewhere in Mansfield County, and working with their neighbors on the Underground Railroad.  That was my father's side of the family, a side with a long line of Presbyterian and Methodist ministers.  My mother (whom I miss terribly today) was from the Mormon pioneer side, and I don't actually know what their opinions on race were, except that my mother considered racism a defect which people had difficulty exorcising.  None of my aunts, uncles, or cousins ever said a racist word.  Spencer Cox, the Lt Governor of Utah, is a distant cousin of my mother, and he seems to be a highly moral man without a racist bone in his body.  Last August he said:

I’m not sure I would characterize racists or the saints or their leaders upholding the ban in its day as people filled with rage and hate. Racism is condemnable no matter its emotional flavor. I think this is why the Race and Priesthood article for example focuses on cultural context, theories and doctrine and not on the depraved feelings people might hold and which are generally unknown. There were many peaceable followers of Christ, some even black, who nonetheless believed incorrectly on this point without carrying the more hateful baggage of others within the “highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege.”

[EdGoble]

On 5/11/2018 at 4:44 PM, cinepro said:

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. 

The story is extremely clear, and doesn't require any "interpretation", other than out of a desire to find a way for it to say something other than what it actually says.

 Moses 7:8  - A curse of "blackness" came upon Cain and his children.  They were "despised" by other people, so the "blackness" obviously wasn't meant to be metaphorical; there had to be a way for non-Canaanites to know who the Canaanites were so they could despise them.

 

When God kills everyone on the planet except for Noah and his family, there needs to be a way for the Canaanite lineage and curse to continue.  The Book of Abraham explains clearly that this happened because Ham married a Canaanite woman, named Egyptus.  They had a daughter (also named Egyptus?) who discovered the land of Egypt, and she and her son (Ham's grandson?) start Egypt.  But because the Pharaohs are all descended from Ham and Egyptus, they all have the Canaanite curse and therefore can't have the Priesthood. This would all be taking place in Africa, which is the designated place to "preserve the curse in the land."  How coincidental.

 

 

People were black in Africa because of evolution in an environment with a lot of sun long before Noah or Cain, and non-blacks got our whiteness from inter-species relations with the Neanderthal, who were white because of evolution in a Ice-age environment in an area without so much sun.

That is the origin of whiteness and blackness in the human species, not a mythological curse.

If children of Ham or pre-flood people intermarried with black Africans, this is separate from a priesthood curse, and is only coincidental, and is not connected to righteousness or wickedness.  If people are bigoted because of skin color, then they are bigots.  This is a separate issue from righteousness or wickedness.

Curses to the priesthood in ancient times are entirely separate from the mythological curse imagined up in the 19th century.

Anyone that apostatizes from the Church has the curse of Cain on them when they lose their priesthood upon excommunication, and that curse is spread to their children when they are out of the Church.  And that curse is lifted when they return.

This is the true curse of Cain.  And it has nothing to do with skin color.  It has to do with the loss of the Spirit, which makes someone spiritually "dark."  Sorry.

While it is true that some native Americans also had the same curse of Cain upon them when Laman and Lemuel apostatized, it is only coincidental that the children of Laman and Lemuel intermarried with the other native tribes that had a darker skin.  But God saw fit to use it as a sign.  Notwithstanding it is merely coincidental, yet it was useful as a physical "sign."  It in itself is not the curse.  It is simply the marker of biology when people intermarry with people of a darker complexion.  And that, in itself, is no sin.  It just so happens that it COINCIDED in times past with certain groups of people that chose to apostatize.  And that coincidence made it a "mark."  And God capitalized on people's bigotry in order to keep them separate, so that the righteous would not mix with the wicked.

The Nephites were bigoted against darker skin-colored Native Americans, and other people in history were bigoted against blacks.  While bigotry isn't a good thing in a more enlightened society, at least the backward bigots were kept separate from the apostates.  God had to keep them separate somehow, and this was convenient in a time that their thinking was bigoted.  This doesn't make bigotry right.  However, God uses things that are available to his advantage.

Edited May 14, 2018 by EdGoble