Racism in the scriptures

[Seeking]

I am an atheist. I'm completely open about that on my profile, as you saw- and that is why I joined - to evaluate how the Mormon position approaches reality and to see if it would be a tenable faith for me to subscribe to.

[mightynancy]

How can you say this:

As Matthew explained, it has to do with the curse of Cain/Canaan.

And then say this?

The Church doesn't promote this point of view anymore.

Are you saying it had to do with Cain, but we just don't say so anymore?

Elder Holland has stated, "One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place." (snips and bolding mine ~mn)

We don't know.

[Seeking]

But I am sorry for wasting your time...I'll remove my profile/post and won't bother you again.

[pam]

I was a bit confused as well with this mightynancy.

[blackknight5k]

If you honestly are trying to see if our religion jives with reality, the answer is yes. I was very very agnostic on the point of athiesm for the majority of my life. Our religion is like a massive puzzle of a magnificent picture of eternal happiness. Just like any other puzzle, if you pick up a piece sometimes you can't make out what it is.

As has been discussed, we do not know why this practice was in place, we've been told not to speculate on why though there are MANY theories. Keep in mind that policy isn't always doctrine, and it's possible that there are reasons that we can't comprehend to explain why for that period of time our brethren of African decent couldn't hold the priesthood.

Also, as has been discussed already, you have come across very hostile about everything you ask. This is obviously going to put us off and make us suspect you are just trying to stir the pot.

[Seeking]

Sorry for raising those suspicions. I guess sometimes forums like this aren't the best place to discuss certain issues since we cannot know what the other person is really like. I appreciate your input...thanks for helping.

[Just_A_Guy]

Is it true that the Nephi verses were recently edited due to increasing lay knowledge of their racist tones?

Apologies for the late hit here . . .

Joseph Smith made this edit (and a number of others) himself for a later edition of the Book of Mormon (1837). However, editions of the Book of Mormon published after Smith's death in the United States tended to revert back to the 1830 language. The 1981 edition was based on a rather extensive effort to reconcile the texts of the various editions of the Book of Mormon in order to figure out the "correct" text in each case.

Beyond that--you may want to check out the work of Royal Skousen, who has examined both the original manuscript of the book (what's left of it, that is) and the first transcription made of that manuscript (a document known as the "printer's manuscript"). He has recently published an edition of the Book of Mormon that he suggests to be the closest we've ever gotten to the text of the Book of Mormon as it was revealed to Joseph Smith.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

BlacksInTheScriptures.com

Get the DVD set and learn about Blacks in the Bible, Curses, Equality, Blacks and the LDS Priesthood.

These DVDs have been instrumental to helping many people who are earnest seekers of truth to understand these issues.

[MarginOfError]

How can you say this:

As Matthew explained, it has to do with the curse of Cain/Canaan.

And then say this?

The Church doesn't promote this point of view anymore.

Are you saying it had to do with Cain, but we just don't say so anymore?

I think the intention was to communicate that Matthew's explanation is what was used to explain the policy when it was in effect, but that current leaders have rejected that interpretation, thereby justifying the change in policy.

[MarginOfError]

And if you really want to see this issue hashed out in a [make-believe] civil manner, try this thread.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young.html

[rameumptom]

The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with black people. It discusses a curse that fell upon those who fought the people of God. Interestingly, the BoM shows them repenting a few times and becoming part of the righteous. And they did have the priesthood and other blessings of the Church. So it just does not apply.

In 19th century America, most Americans believed that blacks were under the curse of Cain/Canaan. This was accepted by Brigham Young and others, who under their personal reading of the Bible decided that this curse was one of priesthood. As far as we can tell, this was not based on revelation, but on American traditions that created the Southern Baptist church and other Chritian churches that were pro-slavery.

One thought: today we have congregations that are mixed with people of all races, all enjoying all the benefits of the gospel. Meanwhile, many other Christian religions are still rather segregated into black and white congregations. Yet we are the ones who still get questioned like this. Go figure.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Sorry for raising those suspicions. I guess sometimes forums like this aren't the best place to discuss certain issues since we cannot know what the other person is really like. I appreciate your input...thanks for helping.

and thus ends the thread of yet another person unwilling to accept the possibility that their ideas/beleifs could be wrong.

If you're not willing to listen to, and consider the weight of, our answers to your questions respectfully, then why bother asking them?

When one asks questions with the tone that any and all answers to it are automatically wrong, the fact is very easy to pick up on by those of us who've been in a few debates before. This isn't our first rodeo, and you are welcome any time you are willing to hear us out.

[Seeking]

'and thus ends the thread of yet another person unwilling to accept the possibility that their ideas/beleifs could be wrong.'

Not at all...I am quite willing to accept that my ideas and beliefs could be wrong. It seems that my thread generated a bit of confusion not only from me but even with members of your faith (see mightynancy & wingnuts posts).

It's just hard for me to believe that a prophet who had a direct line to God would have chosen to follow "American traditions that created the Southern Baptist church and other Chritian churches that were pro-slavery" (as rameumpton offered above) rather than follow a more egalitarian synthesis one might expect from an omnipotent, merciful God.

Seems the reports of this threads demise were a little premature?

[Just_A_Guy]

It's just hard for me to believe that a prophet who had a direct line to God would have chosen to follow "traditions that created [institutions] that were pro-slavery" . . . rather than follow a more egalitarian synthesis one might expect from an omnipotent, merciful God.

Yeah. But enough about Moses, Jesus, and Paul . . .

I find slavery repulsive, but I also find that one's search for God becomes more meaningful when one embraces Him as He is rather than trying to force-fit Him into a 20th-century westerner's ideal of perfection.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Seeking]

LOL...that was great.

Seriously though, is my understanding that the prophets are directed by God mistaken?

[MarginOfError]

LOL...that was great.

Seriously though, is my understanding that the prophets are directed by God mistaken?

No. But the extension that some like to apply--perhaps including yourself at the moment--that prophets are directed by God in all things is suspect.

[slamjet]

LOL...that was great.

Seriously though, is my understanding that the prophets are directed by God mistaken?

And here are them fight'n words again.

[Matthew0059]

Elder Holland has stated, "One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place." (snips and bolding mine ~mn)

Source?

Mightynancy, the idea that lineage affects the ability to hold the Priesthood is scriptural- found in both the Bible and the Pearl of Great Price. I have never seen any modern prophet refute the idea that the priesthood ban was due to lineage. Even in the quote you provided, if it is an accurate representation of Elder Holland's remarks, all he admits is that the explanations were inadequate and/or wrong. Saying something is "inadequate" is a far cry from saying it is incorrect, and Holland leaves the door open for that interpretation.

The prophets don't throw pearls of the Gospel before those who aren't ready to understand and who would vehemently reject them.

By the way Seeker, I only said that you appeared ("coming across") to be playing games. The best way to have assuaged those concerns would be to not have immediately gone on the defensive like you did, and then throwing in a bakhanded insult ("I must not have much respect for honest questioning").

And, you laid out the case perfectly yourself. You say you "never said it wasn't about lineage", then go on to point out how only those of a certain ethnic descent (i.e., a certian lineage) had the ban in effect on them. You have a very plausible answer right there in front of you.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Matthew0059

[ruthiechan]

And here we are making assumptions about a person based on other people's behavior. Ya'll are slapping a stereotype of "hidden troll" on someone who may not deserve it.

His last question may not be fighting words. This is how I read it, he wants to know, if his assumption (understanding) is mistaken. His assumption (understanding) is that prophets are directed by God. Part of that questioning is based on the idea that prophets are directed by God in ALL things which is not the case.

[Matthew0059]

And here we are making assumptions about a person based on other people's behavior. Ya'll are slapping a stereotype of "hidden troll" on someone who may not deserve it.

? I don't see how anyone is making assumption of Seeker based on anything other than his own posts. Although I do agree that the jump to "troll" may be a bit premature.

[Matthew0059]

No. But the extension that some like to apply--perhaps including yourself at the moment--that prophets are directed by God in all things is suspect.

The extension that the ban may have been against GOD'S wishes, despite the continuance of it for over 100 years, flies in the face of our logic though (not saying you believe that MoE; I don't know what you believe about it).

Because the receipt of the Priesthood is so vital to our salvation (and no man can receive the temple ordinances without it!) I don't see how one could believe that GOD would allow it to continue if it were against HIS will- especially if we believe the early accounts of the frequent visions and manifestations experienced by the early prophets.

[Just_A_Guy]

I can sorta visualize a situation where God might allow it to continue if He knew the Church (or even its leadership) just couldn't/wouldn't accept a revelation to the contrary at that stage in their progression--see, e.g., the institution of the Mosaic law rather than the higher law the Lord would have preferred the Israelites live.

Frankly (threadjack alert), I tend to break for the idea of the priesthood ban being divinely inspired 1) because of accounts from David McKay's family that, as prophet, he asked for permission to remove the ban and was expressly told "no", and 2) because my experience has been that the idea of the priesthood ban being solely the work of racist church leaders tends to be pushed the hardest by people whose agendas I find utterly repulsive.

(And yes, I understand that 2) is deeply flawed, from a logical standpoint.)

[Matthew0059]

I can sorta visualize a situation where God might allow it to continue if He knew the Church (or even its leadership) just couldn't/wouldn't accept a revelation to the contrary at that stage in their progression--see, e.g., the institution of the Mosaic law rather than the higher law the Lord would have preferred the Israelites live.

Frankly (threadjack alert), I tend to break for the idea of the priesthood ban being divinely inspired 1) because of accounts from David McKay's family that, as prophet, he asked for permission to remove the ban and was expressly told "no", and 2) because my experience has been that the idea of the priesthood ban being solely the work of racist church leaders tends to be pushed the hardest by people whose agendas I find utterly repulsive.

(And yes, I understand that 2) is deeply flawed, from a logical standpoint.)

Agree on all points. Hadn't considered the idea that the Saints maybe weren't ready for it- largely because the culture of the Saints after the move westward included so many different ethnicities and cultures, it seems that carnal predjudice would be one of the first things the leaders would be cleansed of.

And point 2 may not be logically correct, but the ways of GOD are foolish to man...

[ruthiechan]

Here is why *I* think there was a ban. The early church was persecuted heavily, as in, people, families, were murdered, beaten, raped, looted and pillaged. Any excuse was probably used to do so, including embracing blacks. I believe it might have been a self-preservation decision. After all, treating blacks as equals was quite progressive in Joseph Smith's time when blacks were still slaves.

The ban lift came AFTER the people, both those in the church and out of the church were more mature on the matters of race, and AFTER Martin Luther King Jr and his followers proved time and time again that they weren't just a bunch of hooligans.

The people needed to mature, both in and out of the church. In the church so they won't leave over it, out of the church to help mitigate the fierce persecution. In the short term, the decision was lousy, in the long term it was probably wise.

[bytebear]

Does God bless certain groups of people more than others, simply by lineage? Certainly the 12 tribes of Israel had blessings specific to them. The tribe of Levi was given priesthood authority above the other 11 tribes. So, is there precedence for church policy? Absolutely. Does that mean Mormons believed that blacks or non-Levites or Lamanites or whoever are inferior? Absolutely not, and studies on racism show that Mormons today and in the past had no more racist views than anyone else, and certainly Smith and the early church was against slavery as an institution. While Christians were preaching the Negro had no soul and was beyond redemption, blacks were being baptized by Mormons. Any religion has cultural influences, and perhaps God establishes laws because of the frailty of man. Or perhaps, a blessing which is more difficult to obtain is more cherished. Certainly Mormons are more sensitive to racism than other churches who get a pass on their "racist" past. And I know that the black Mormons in Ghana and Nigeria had to fight to establish the church there a decade before a single missionary stepped foot in those nations and a decade before they could be priesthood leaders.

Edited March 26, 2011 by bytebear