Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[rongo]

45 minutes ago, Rivers said:

If the curse of Ham justifies the priesthood ban, why did Joseph Smith himself, who gave us the Book of Abraham, ordain black men?

I don't believe he did ordain Elijah Abel (Zebedee Coltrin claimed he did, and he said that the Spirit smote him for doing it. People try to assassinate Coltrin as a witness, because he's the one who claimed that Joseph Smith received a revelation about the ban, when he asked him about it). Who else was Joseph Smith supposed to have ordained? 

There are statements from Joseph Smith that are in full support of the traditional explanations about the priesthood ban. It's also possible that Joseph Smith changed his views on it, or received further light on it (i.e., that he was open to black ordination, and then was taught differently by God). 

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

But it never says Cain!"

And it says Canaan…so why not the Curse of Canaan?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ham's curse for his descendants ("servant of servants") was literally fulfilled by marrying into Cain's line.

Except only Canaan was cursed.  What about Cush and Mizraim sp? And nowhere in the scriptures is Egyptus, the wife of Ham said to be a descendant of Cain or even carrying a curse.  She was just “forbidden” for some reason…maybe she was of a cursed lineage, maybe she was an nonbeliever (remember all the effort they went to get a believing wife for Isaac and what happened to Esau due to his marriage to an nonbeliever).

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right now I'm not looking for common ground.  I'm looking for substantiation of the claim that the Church is presently propagating "racist" teachings.

JK, Duncan, Ttribe, and now you are all apparently persuaded that this is happening.  Fine.  Show me.  CFR.  Where are these ongoing "racits" teachings?  Where is the Church doing this

I don't think smac97 gets to decide if there are racist teachings in the Church.  Let's see what some of our black members say.

https://www.facebook.com/sistasinzion

https://www.facebook.com/james.c.jones.31

These are al active members in the Church and with some effort on your own, you can find many other black voices in the Church explaining racism in the Church

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And it says Canaan…so why not the Curse of Canaan?

I don't think it matters, if Canaan was a son of Egyptus. Cain, Canaan --- same line. 

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Except only Canaan was cursed.

What is your explanation for the curse in Abraham 1? What lineage is "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood?" What "curse in the land" was "preserved" by "that race" coming from "that woman?" 

Abr. 1:26, discussing this Pharaoh, says that "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." What is your explanation about this?

[Duncan]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Are you quoting someone?  Are you responding to what Bytheway wrote?

I quoted you and your response to what Bytheway wrote

 

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's not so.  The Priesthood Ban pertained to those of Black African ancestry.  That's not the same as "only given to caucasians."

AFAIK, there has never been a "Whites Only" restriction on the priesthood.

Bytheway was saying that no one was given the priesthood before 1829 and afterwards it was given out to people who weren't of black African ancestry-except it was given out based on race and withheld based on race-black African could not get the priesthood until 1978-strictly based on race. 

 

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But what does this have to do with the quote from John Bytheyway?  Here is what he said

because he doesn't say that the reason people didn't have the priesthood and then got the priesthood was due to their race. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He doesn't seem to be speaking about the priesthood in the context of race, but rather in the context of gender

and  that makes it better? women at any age have never been able to be ordained to the priesthood

he is saying in essence, that he doesn't know why women don't have  "priesthood keys" and then uses the example of  gender. As if men and women's experience with getting the priesthood are the same-except they aren't. Women have never had the priesthood and priesthood was given out based on race(which he seems to leave out for some reason and I say racism) white men and people with one drop of African blood in them don't have the same experience with the priesthood. He could have simply said why don't women hold priesthood keys? I don't know and leave it at that. Why give out examples of people who also didn't have the priesthood (based on race) who didn't have it and then had it-unless he think women will get the priesthood?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

as I said he conflates race and gender and doesn't even go so far to say that race is different for who got the priesthood, it was whites first and African ancestry only got it starting in 1978. 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it matters, if Canaan was a son of Egyptus. Cain, Canaan --- same line. 

What is your explanation for the curse in Abraham 1? What lineage is "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood?" What "curse in the land" was "preserved" by "that race" coming from "that woman?" 

Abr. 1:26, discussing this Pharaoh, says that "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." What is your explanation about this?

So let's see if I got this straight:

Before the Flood:

Cain the son of Adam was cursed (not black, just marked).

Lamech, a descendant of Cain, was cursed (not black).

The people of Canaan (neither "Canaanites" from the son of Ham nor descendants of Cain) in the days of Enoch had a “blackness” come upon them (Moses 7:6-8).

The seed of Cain the son of Adam “were black” (Moses 7:22).

Possibly the seed of Cain and the pre-flood people of Canaan were the same, and none survived the Flood.

After the Flood:

Ham had a wife, Egyptus, and they had a son, Canaan.

Canaan the son of Ham was cursed by Noah regarding the right to the Priesthood (no "mark", "blackness" or being "black" are mentioned).

His descendants (Canaanites), carried Noah's curse (Abraham 1:21-26).

There is no genealogical connection to pre-flood Cain (son of Adam) since Noah, Ham and Canaan, were from Seth's (the son of Adam) line, unless Egyptus was a descendant of Cain. Likewise, there is no genealogical connection to the pre-flood people of Canaan, unless Egyptus had this lineage.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So let's see if I got this straight:

Before the Flood:

Cain the son of Adam was cursed (not black, just marked).

Lamech, a descendant of Cain, was cursed (not black).

The people of Canaan (neither "Canaanites" from the son of Ham nor descendants of Cain) in the days of Enoch had a “blackness” come upon them (Moses 7:6-8).

The seed of Cain the son of Adam “were black” (Moses 7:22).

Possibly the seed of Cain and the pre-flood people of Canaan were the same, and none survived the Flood.

After the Flood:

Ham had a wife, Egyptus, and they had a son, Canaan.

Canaan the son of Ham was cursed by Noah regarding the right to the Priesthood (no "mark", "blackness" or being "black" are mentioned).

His descendants (Canaanites), carried Noah's curse (Abraham 1:21-26).

There is no genealogical connection to pre-flood Cain (son of Adam) since Noah, Ham and Canaan, were from Seth's (the son of Adam) line, unless Egyptus was a descendant of Cain. Likewise, there is no genealogical connection to the pre-flood people of Canaan, unless Egyptus had this lineage.

Correct. Egyptus is the link to the lineage surviving the flood. 

ETA: This is recognized, outside of the Pearl of Great Price, in discussing it. Two examples:

"There are many instances, from that time forward, of which the scriptures speak of this birthright continuing among the descendants of Seth, until it came to Noah and his sons, of which sons Shem received the blessings pertaining to the priesthood. Abraham came through Shem, and the Savior came through this lineage; and through this blessing of Noah upon Shem, the Priesthood continued through his seed; while the offspring of Ham inherited a curse, and it was because, as a revelation teaches, some of the blood of Cain became mingled with that of Ham's family, and hence they inherited that curse. " (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 21:370)

"When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth." (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 23:336)

Edited February 12, 2022 by rongo

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

take it as a given that you believe the Book of Abraham was given by revelation and was divinely inspired. What is it talking about, then, if the whole Cain/Ham curse is thrown out of court?

Curse of Canaan, not Cush or Mizraim, so it couldn’t be because they were sons of Egyptus…unless one assumes Ham had a second wife later on (was Canaan the oldest?…just read he was his fourth, so I am missing someone), who would have to be the daughter of one of his brothers, given it was 8 souls and not 9.

So for whatever reason Canaan got cursed instead of Ham, it appears it is the curse of Canaan that gets taken to Egypt.  Given they don’t name the husband of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham…why don’t they, do you think?…she could have been married or at least carried her brother’s child.  Or the more likely case imo is “daughter” is used instead of “descendant” as sometimes happens with “son” in the genealogies of the Bible. And Egyptus the daughter of Ham, is more likely the daughter or granddaughter of Canaan. If it is a few generations from Ham, Egyptus’ husband can be a nobody in the family, seventh son of an sixth daughter and fifth son of Noah’s kids, rather than one of those named and therefore assigned a lineage in Genesis.  Instead, Egyptus’ husband has no territory to his name, so Egyptus decides to go get her son some.  Egyptus couldn’t have survived on her own in Egypt with just baby first Pharaoh…who would baby Pharaoh marry for one thing?, they had to come with a group… which again suggests a couple of generations since Noah.  Egyptus seems to be the leader of the group until she turns her authority over to her son, who then reverts to going father to son.  But since Egyptus didn’t possess the priesthood and it appears the father of Canaan didn’t have a role in leadership, so unlikely he did either, Pharaoh’s claim of inheriting the Priesthood through mommy back to Ham is bogus.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Bytheway was saying that no one was given the priesthood before 1829 and afterwards it was given out to people who weren't of black African ancestry-except it was given out based on race and withheld based on race-black African could not get the priesthood until 1978-strictly based on race. 

Could you provide a citation?  

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

He doesn't seem to be speaking about the priesthood in the context of race, but rather in the context of gender

and  that makes it better? women at any age have never been able to be ordained to the priesthood

I know that.  But why is Bytheway being brought into a discussion about "racism" when the quote from him I provided has nothing to do with race?

Did he make some other comment that was about race?  If so, what was it?

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he is saying in essence,

Hoo, boy.  Anytime we step away from what a Latter-day Saint has actually said and direct attention to a paraphrase or revision from someone who seems generally critical/hostile to the Church, (particularly a paraphrase that starts with something like "he is saying in essence..."), I tend to get a bit leery.

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that he doesn't know why women don't have  "priesthood keys"

And you think that is . . . bad?  You are faulting him for not knowing why women don't have "priesthood keys"?  Why?

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and then uses the example of  gender.

He was addressing the question "Why don't women hold priesthood keys?"  He said "it is a legitimate question, a fair question, and worthy of discussion."

He was not, AFAICS, addressing the Priesthood Ban.  Am I wrong on that point?

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

As if men and women's experience with getting the priesthood are the same-except they aren't.

I find your characterization of his remarks substantially unjustified and inaccurate.  This seems like a strawman.  

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Women have never had the priesthood and priesthood was given out based on race (which he seems to leave out for some reason and I say racism) white men and people with one drop of African blood in them don't have the same experience with the priesthood.

Hold up.  You are accusing him of racism because of something he did not say?  Really?

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He could have simply said why don't women hold priesthood keys? I don't know and leave it at that.

That would make for a shorter book.  But what does that have to do with Bytheway saying something "racist"?

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Why give out examples of people who also didn't have the priesthood (based on race) who didn't have it and then had it-unless he think women will get the priesthood?

He did nothing of the sort.  This is a manifestly false and inaccurate characterization.

Here is what he said:

Quote

Why don't women hold priesthood keys?  I don't know.  It's not my call.  But it is a legitimate question, a fair question, and worthy of discussion.  So often in life, we get stuck asking questions, but not all the right ones.  This is not the only question to ask.  There are a lot more.

Why didn't anyone have the priesthood from about AD 100 until 1829 (except for John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, I suppose?)  How fair is that?  No one had the chance to be baptized?  No one had the opportunity to receive the comforting gift of the Holy Ghost?  No one had a chance to go to the temple?  For seventeen centuries?  Here's another question: Why did only the tribe of Levi have the priesthood during earlier times?  Were the tribes of Asher or Dan or Naphtali out demanding they have it too?  And here's another one - why don't women need the priesthood in order to attend the temple?  President James E. Faust taught: "In His infinite wisdom, the Lord requires worthy brethren to wear the mantle of the priesthood in order to enter the temple, but He permits the sisters to enter solely by virtue of their personal worthiness."

Unless you are prepared to claim that Bytheway's differentiation of the tribe of Levi from the other tribes of Israel is a reference to "race," what you are saying about him is simply false.  He gave no examples of "people who also didn't have the priesthood (based on race)."  That is a fabrication and falsehood on your part.

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

as I said he conflates race and gender

He does nothing of the sort.

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and doesn't even go so far to say that race is different for who got the priesthood, it was whites first and African ancestry only got it starting in 1978. 

You are making false statements.  

You are accusing John Bytheway of racism not because he said anything about race or racism, because he did not say something you think he should have said.

What you are doing here is reprehensible and wrong.

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth

The verse sounds like this is referring to Pharaoh…so is Noah Pharaoh’s father or more likely ancestor (given the Bible’s tendency to use father and son for multigenerational gaps)?

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

don't think it matters, if Canaan was a son of Egyptus. Cain, Canaan --- same line. 

Only if you assume that Egyptus was of the line of Cain.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What about the belief that one of the son’s wives carried the Curse (thoughI prefer Cain hanging off the side of the Ark myself 😛 )?  Or are you saying that has to be inserted into the text?

People are always trying to figure out a way to justify racism.  Southern pastors always found a way to justify slavery, and some of them were KKK leaders.  The Southern Baptists didn't apologize for all that until long after 1978, but they finally got around to it.

 

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

What other curse would she be perpetuating? Why else (if not that) would the "curse in the land" be "preserved" by "that race" coming from "that woman?" (verse 24). You can continue to say, "But it never says Cain!" and posit an unknown different curse that has nothing to do with Cain, but it's very clear that even Joseph Smith interpreted it this way. And uttered language in dictating the JST (Book of Moses) and Book of Abraham to that effect. Those who were taught by him continued these explanations. 

There is a studied attempt to pound away at that same key ("But it doesn't specifically say Cain!"), but it's obvious that this reaction is because we run up against the wall of the Pearl of Great Price and Joseph Smith, et. al.'s explanations of it down to the 2000s, when they are avoided out of PC/PR considerations. 

There are lots of curses of different kinds, including some in the Book of Mormon, which have nothing to do with Cain.  Joseph Fielding Smith and some others repeatedly tried to claim that Joseph was the author of all that, but a Black LDS PhD student (Tarik LaCour) says that's nonsense, and that is just an attempt to justify the adoption of deliberate racism in 1852.  There has never actually been any real justification for those rumors.

The bottom line is that "Cain" does not appear in the Book of Abraham.  Egyptus (Zeptah), or the daughter of Egyptus and Ham, does discover Egypt during an annual inundation of the Nile River.  She supposedly preserves the curse in the land through her son, the first Pharaoh.  However, the curse only applies to priesthood, and has something to do with the Canaanites.  Note that Canaan (Kena'an) is a word which is not related in any way to Cain (Qayin), and they are spelled completely differently.  These are scholarly facts, not politically correct lies.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So let's see if I got this straight:

Before the Flood:

Cain the son of Adam was cursed (not black, just marked).

Lamech, a descendant of Cain, was cursed (not black).

The people of Canaan (neither "Canaanites" from the son of Ham nor descendants of Cain) in the days of Enoch had a “blackness” come upon them (Moses 7:6-8).

The seed of Cain the son of Adam “were black” (Moses 7:22).

Possibly the seed of Cain and the pre-flood people of Canaan were the same, and none survived the Flood.

After the Flood:

Ham had a wife, Egyptus, and they had a son, Canaan.

Canaan the son of Ham was cursed by Noah regarding the right to the Priesthood (no "mark", "blackness" or being "black" are mentioned).

His descendants (Canaanites), carried Noah's curse (Abraham 1:21-26).

There is no genealogical connection to pre-flood Cain (son of Adam) since Noah, Ham and Canaan, were from Seth's (the son of Adam) line, unless Egyptus was a descendant of Cain. Likewise, there is no genealogical connection to the pre-flood people of Canaan, unless Egyptus had this lineage.

Yep.  Any connection has to be assumed.  And it shouldn’t be because the English names sound alike or because one thinks there is a limit on curses.

The Lamanites are also cursed with blackness…it sounds to me that “blackness” is symbolic of being cursed and any lineage might be labeled black if perceived as cursed, so one doesn’t need to assume that the Cainites and Canaanites are identical. (I am not assuming that blackness in scripture is what we think of in reference to black African descendants…especially since Lamanites were not apparently the same color as black Africans, I think it is a symbolic label, not an actual ‘mark’ of blackness).

Edited February 12, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

Egyptus is the link to the lineage surviving the flood. 

Assumed link.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It's in the Book of Abraham, and it's hard for people who want to defend the veracity of the Book of Abraham to explain away.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

---

Unless they are willing to get rid of the Book of Abraham in order to uphold modern racial sensibilities. I hear people online (never in person, luckily) who advocate for the black skin passages in the BoM and BoA to be completely erased from the text. Completely removed --- and many of them would also be happy with a complete removal of the BoA and Book of Moses from the canon. 

There are too many Mormons who insist on inserting race into these texts where there is none. It is tiresome and, well, racist. Those that want to keep the verses racist to yell about banning them fall into the same trap. 

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I don't think smac97 gets to decide if there are racist teachings in the Church.  Let's see what some of our black members say.

https://www.facebook.com/sistasinzion

https://www.facebook.com/james.c.jones.31

These are al active members in the Church and with some effort on your own, you can find many other black voices in the Church explaining racism in the Church

Black LDS PhD student Tarik LaCour has complete command of the historical facts and explains the matter rather well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khThGVq1j6Q&t=66s

 

[Duncan]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am going to make this real easy because you're shockingly clueless but do you want racism in the Church? Do you have what it takes to stamp it out when you hear it as you claim? What should happen with Brad Wilcox? What do you think about racists in the church? Should the Church condemn it yet they have someone in their General Leadership going around as Brad has for some years now saying all his nonsense. I personally hope they release him, otherwise the Church is kinda sorta against it but kinda sorta not. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Duncan

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

And how does that make one whit of difference to the underlying fact? The church can continue without one woman present while women wouldn't even be able to hold a sacrament meeting without a man. There is no getting past that. 

Perhaps. But where is the fun in that?

It's all a matter of priesthood keys.

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

............... Cain, Canaan --- same line. ..............

This sort of easy, but false equation is the problem.  There is no connection at all.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But what does this have to do with the quote from John Bytheyway?  Here is what he said:

I missed that he was only speaking about women and the priesthood in the book because I have only seen the Levite argument used for the Priesthood Ban and that was how Wilcox first used it.  Got to be careful about reading into the text and not skip over what people are saying because of being tired or distracted.

But I would really like to know if he applies the same reasoning to the Ban.  It just doesn’t make sense IMO to apply this reasoning to women not being given the priesthood and not think the same reasoning for the Ban.  But I shouldn’t assume that until there is evidence.  Anyone know if Bytheway has discussed the Ban issue?

So maybe he is not racist and is just sexist.   Actually though, he is using an ethnic/racial argument IMO as he is talking about different social groups that are defined by blood lineage.  Not usually how we talk about race, but blood lineage is blood lineage in my book…

Edited February 12, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Abraham 1:27 further states that Pharaoh was "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood." If we're going solely by strict wording --- and excluding Cain's curse perpetuated through Egyptus --- what it this talking about then?

It goes on to state that the Pharaohs claimed it (illegitimately) through Ham, and that was one thing that had thrown Abraham's father into idolatry (verse 27).

 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

When it says ""of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood" what lineage is that, then?

 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What lineage is "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood?"

 

Egyptus was a woman. You can't inherit a male line priesthood via your mother, hence he tried to claim it via his grandfather.

[Calm]

Just now, JustAnAustralian said:

 

 

 

Egyptus was a woman. You can't inherit a male line priesthood via your mother, hence he tried to claim it via his grandfather.

I really want to know who Pharaoh’s father was and why he is so conspicuously missing from the text.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This sort of easy, but false equation is the problem.  There is no connection at all.

American apologists for slavery made that spurious connection, and Joseph Smith apparently incorporated it into scripture. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

American apologists for slavery made that spurious connection, and Joseph Smith apparently incorporated it into scripture. 

Apparently?  CFR