Maverick

These are excellent points. Bullet points 1 and 2 support bullet point 3, that God was the one with whom the ban originated. There have been many "policies" in the church that have been changed without a revelation like the one in OD-2, even long standing ones. In modern times Church presidents David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee prayed to know if they should lift the ban and reported being told by God not to lift it at that time. The only reasonable explanation for this is that God was the author of the ban. Great points here as well. You are correct that it's a false claim that the statement by the church that TODAY previous explanations are disavowed means that they have been declared false. All it means is that the church doesn't believe that they apply today and that they are no longer considered doctrinally binding upon the church membership. Logically and scripturally, at least some of the past explanations are far more sound than chalking the whole thing up to unfortunate racial prejudice common in the mid 1800s. There's no question in my mind that our action or inaction before this mortal probation impact our station in this life. In my opinion it's completely illogical to believe otherwise. I have similar sentiments. I believe that the ban came from God and that it wasn't a product of ignorance and racism by past prophets. I believe that the ban was scripturally and theological sound and will defend the ban as having been instituted by God, even if that means I am falsely accused of racism by those who disagree.

I think the days of the church taking a hardline stance on controversial or sensitive issues, like insisting that the origin of the priesthood ban came from God and expecting the members to all accept that, are over. Today the idea seems to be to allow for diversity of thought and for people to pretty much believe whatever they want to if it keeps them in the boat. The church is in a tough spot on this issue because anything that can be construed as racial prejudice is completely taboo in our society today. There's little to be gained for the church in trying to provide a doctrinal defense for the legitimacy of the ban, now that it has been lifted for over 40 years. It's much easier to just say that none of the previous explanations are considered doctrine today, that church doesn't consider dark skin to be a sign of divine disfavor today, or that interracial marriage is wrong today and leave it at that. I don't think the intent of the essay was to provide good scholarship and fully address the issue at all. I think the original intended purpose was to provide an answer for people who are deeply troubled by the ban and having a faith crisis over it. The essay made no attempt to provide all of the relevant information about the ban and to thoroughly address it. The goal appears to have been to give those who find the ban deeply disturbing the ability to write it off as mistaken policy that was the result of unjustified cultural prejudice in society at large, while also leaving room for those who believe that the ban was from God to continue to believe that as well. I don't know why you keep pressing me for this. I said I will provide it in a separate post soon, and I will. I just need a little bit of time to track down links for the original sources so people can verify the information for themselves. I want to do my due diligence. Please be patient. I'll provide the information soon.

This is an assumption on your part. Moses 7 talks about the Canaanites or descendants of Cain being separate from the rest of the human family and not mixing with them. God also commanded the Israelites through Moses not to intermarry with the Canaanites specifically. So it’s reasonable to conclude that the Canaanites were not generally mixed in with the other races in Moses’ day. No, because the Hyksos (who were ethnically similar to the Hebrews), not the original Canaanite Egyptians, had conquered Egypt and were ruling it at the time of Joseph. So Joseph would have married a Hykso princess, not a Canaanite one.

I don't have to prove that their statements were made as "moved upon by the Holy Ghost." When prophets make official doctrinal statements in their capacity as prophets, then the belief is that this was given to them by God through the Holy Ghost. That holds true then and it holds true now. If there are contradictions between different prophets on a subject, then it's up to us to receive personal revelation on the matter for ourselves. You didn't bold the most important key word "and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." Came is past tense, not future tense. Thus the blackness had come upon them before the incident with the people of Shum. I didn't bring up the land being barren and unfruitful to bolster my point. You brought that up. Now it's on you to show that the Canaanites (whoever you believe they are) all lived in a land that was exclusively barren and unfruitful from then until the present day. Otherwise your interpretation of this verse doesn't hold up. I don't have to prove a lineage between Cain and Egyptus. It's a valid conclusion from the text and from the statements of Joseph Smith and other church leaders. It's also mentioned in the guide to the scriptures, lets not forget that. Again, I don't think your interpretation that all Canaanites would forever live in a land that was 100% barren and unfruitful holds up at all. But the Hyksos conquest and the subsequent return to power of the original Canaanite Egyptians is significant. I acknowledged that the evidence from this data point is not definitive already. That doesn't mean it's not worth considering. The teachings of the Lord's seer about black Africans being Canaanites and descendants of Cain and under a divine curse that remained to that day absolutely support my conclusion that the ban began with him and that it was put in place by God.

This essay doesn't say that Brigham Young implemented the ban, not Joseph Smith. The essay states that Brigham Young publicly announced the ban in 1852. He also publicly announced plural marriage that year, too, yet we know that it was started by Joseph Smith privately at least a decade earlier. The scholar who wrote the essay didn't consider the evidence that Joseph Smith denied black men the priesthood reliable, but there was no definitive declaration that the ban did not begin with Joseph Smith.

Just look at the post that you were replying to. Husband and wife becoming one flesh does not mean what you are suggesting. It means becoming one or inseparable in this life and throughout the eternities by being sealed together and being true and faithful to each other and their covenants.

Husband and wife are to become one flesh, right?

Actually, yes it does: Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt, Abr. 1:23, 25 (Ps. 105:23; 106:21–22). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/ham?lang=eng

According to the guide to the scriptures, we were both right. :)

I just hadn't had the time to address your post yet, since it was so long. I just responded. I didn't address every point you made, as that would take a very long time and be very long, but I believe that I have addressed your most pertinent points. If after you address the counter-points I made there are other specific things you would like me to address, just let me know and I will get to them when I can.

While there's no scripture that specifically states that Canaanites were descendants of Cain, there is a scriptural basis for it, which I will explain. I will also add here that the Lord said in D&C 68: 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. 5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants. So doctrinal statements and teachings by church leaders, particularly church presidents and apostles, when they were given to them by the Holy Ghost are also considered scripture. Moses 7 doesn't say that the curse fell upon them after this event. That's your interpretation. Many black Africans also lived in barren areas and most of Egypt is barren and unfruitful except for around the Nile and especially the Nile delta. Yes, ancient Egypt had diverse people living in it from different lineages and with different skin tones, etc. Abraham 1 is referring to the first Egyptians being Canaanites, not all subsequent people who lived in Egypt. As a bit of a history lesson, the original Egyptians weren't in power during the time that the children of Israel came to Egypt to escape the famine in the days of Joseph. Egypt had been conquered by the Hyksos who are believed to have been from a similar ethnic background as the Hebrews. Later the original Egyptians returned to power and drove out the Hyksos. It was these original Egyptians who enslaved the Hebrews. Moses 7 has this to say about the descendants of Cain: 22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. From this we see that the seed of Cain was despised by the rest of the descendants of Adam and weren't mixed with them or dwelt with them. This is actually strong evidence that the two people and curses were one and the same. Like @Vort, I categorically reject that the Nephites were "racist" and that their erroneous "racist" beliefs are taught in the Book of Mormon as divine truth. Some Nephites may have been prejudiced towards the Lamanites because of their darker skin, but the Book of Mormon plainly tells us that the darker skin was put upon them by God in order to keep the Nephites from intermarrying with them. It's a relevant data point, but doesn't in and of itself prove that Joseph Smith disapproved of black men being ordained to the priesthood. Probably the most significant of the black men in Nauvoo who weren't ordained to the priesthood is Isaac Lewis Manning, the older brother of Jane Manning James. The James family was well acquainted with Joseph Smith. The fact that he was not ordained is possible evidence that Joseph Smith was opposed to ordaining him on account of his lineage. Again, it's not definitive. We don't know enough about the worldview of the Israelites in Moses' day to know how they would have interpreted what Moses wrote concerning the curse put upon Canaan in Genesis 9 or what he wrote in Moses 7 that was restored by Joseph Smith in his inspired translation of the bible. What we do know is how the Lord's seer, who brought forth these scriptures to us, understood them.

That may be your opinion on the matter, but I disagree. I believe that what he taught on the matter was given to him by the Holy Ghost.

Do you have any sources that show that his beliefs on the priesthood ban had evolved in the decades following Joseph Smith death and the interview with John Taylor in 1879? He was a very faithful man who had had amazing spiritual experiences and was intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith. I don't see any evidence that would suggest that he would have lied about what Joseph Smith had taught him or made up a series of events that never happened. If Joseph and Emma truly contemplated an adoptive sealing for Jane Manning James, then you could be right. It's also possible that if they briefly considered it, Joseph Smith didn't go through with it because the spirit told him that this was wrong. We simply don't know.

I believe that there was a misunderstanding here. What I was saying is what zil2 explained more thoroughly: I wasn't implying or suggesting "any racial inferiority" of any group of people past or present.

Exactly right. This is how I understand and the point I was trying to make. I must not have done a very good job, since it appears my comment regarding the guide to the scriptures was misunderstood. Thank you for explaining it better than I did.

On a side note, the current guide to the scriptures has this to say about Ham: The church today still maintains that the Canaanites who were under a curse mentioned in Genesis 9 and in Abraham 1 were descendants of Cain.

Some early Latter-day Saint leaders suggested that she was his wife in mortality during the meridian of time, but I was actually referring to him being married before he became a God in the first place, prior to the creation of this world.

No, that’s not true. He applied scriptural history about an ancient divine curse put upon black skinned Canaanites and descendants of Cain and applied it to black Africans (Negroes) in his day and said that the curse had not yet been lifted. According to Abraham 1, which he brought forth as true scripture from God, that curse also included not being able to hold the priesthood. Yes, I do. Some of it has already been brought up. But I’ll provide several documented pieces of evidence of this in a separate post soon.

Regardless of what significance or interpretation we put on this line from the Declaration of Independence, it doesn’t have anything to do with the priesthood ban, because being ordained to the priesthood and receiving the ordinances of the temple is not an unalienable right all humans are born with.

No, I’m not trying to prove the entire essay incorrect. But I do believe that the essay is misleading in some areas and gives people the wrong impression by not including all of the relevant information.

Can you please clarify what you meant regarding Joseph and Brigham being in error regarding their teachings about this, since I apparently unintentionally misunderstood what you meant? And can you please explain why you consider me to be in greater error than they were for believing that their teachings were correct and given to them by God? Great quote by Joseph Smith btw. The fact that we disagree on the doctrinal accuracy of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on this point doesn’t make either of us bad men, regardless of of which one of us is in error on this issue.

1. Zebedee Coltrin’s testimony is much more important than Abraham O. Smoot’s. He is also a very reliable witness, who was intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith, had seen multiple visions including of God the Father and Jesus Christ together with Joseph Smith, and didn’t own slaves. 2. Do you have a source for Jane Manning James claiming that Joseph Smith wanted her sealed to him as his wife? My understanding is that he and Emma had considered adopting her as a daughter, not as a plural wife. Joseph Smith is also on record opposing interracial marriage between blacks and whites.

While I can respect your opinion that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. were simply products of their time who taught falsehoods as doctrine because they were blinded by cultural racism and other serious blindspots, I respectfully disagree. I believe that what they taught about the curse upon black people and the priesthood ban was true doctrine revealed to them by God.

This is obviously a disingenuous question as every quote except for the last one is a contemporaneously recorded statement by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith gave us these words of Abraham and considered them to be true teachings revealed by God. Joseph Smith disagreed. He identified black Africans as Canaanites. Yes, it does. It’s literally in the verses from Moses 7 I quoted. In his inspired translation, Joseph Smith said that a blackness had come upon the Canaanites and that the descendants of Cain were black. You say it’s not about skin, but Joseph Smith clearly disagreed since he identified black Africans as Canaanites and descendants of Cain. You can believe he was wrong, but that’s what he taught. Again, you’re welcome to believe that Joseph Smith was wrong, but he clearly taught that black Africans were under a divine curse instituted by God through his prophet Noah upon the descendants of Canaan. I just can’t take you seriously after this response. Very disrespectful and condescending. I hope this is true, if all you’re going to do is try to debunk all the evidence you don’t like in the condescending way you have thus far. But if you change your mind and decide you want to be civil, I’m happy to converse with you. Otherwise I will only respond for the benefit of others who may be reading this thread.

It’s your opinion that these teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors were an error. But I disagree, I believe that they taught the truth.