Fireside: Blacks in the Scriptures - Irvine, CA

[skippy740]

If you're in the Irvine, CA area, you owe it to yourself to attend this LDS fireside on October 21, 2012 @ 5:30pm with Marvin Perkins! (Note: Please don't post this info in programs or LDS buildings outside of the stake boundaries... because then it runs the risk of being cancelled!)

As I become aware of fireside locations, I will post them here for forum members.

[skippy740]

LOCATION CHANGE:

Still in Irvine, but now at the new building on Bryan. 5353 Bryan Ave Irvine, CA 92620

[daboosh]

not that i can make it or anything cos i live in new zealand but i have to say i admire the efforts of these people.

[Janadele]

I tried to listen to the videos presented on the site. There was a problem with the receiving of them, but the overall impression I had was not favourable. It is one thing supporting the right of the Negro male to hold the Priesthood, but to claim that Jesus Christ had Negro ancestry is not acceptable.

[skippy740]

Why is it "not acceptable"?

Let's recall that Darius Gray uses the term "one drop of negro blood" in the Blacks in the Bible segment.

We know that Christ was Jewish, but it's not impossible for him to have an element of Negro ancestry.

Personally, I find it fascinating.

[Vort]

I tried to listen to the videos presented on the site. There was a problem with the receiving of them, but the overall impression I had was not favourable. It is one thing supporting the right of the Negro male to hold the Priesthood, but to claim that Jesus Christ had Negro ancestry is not acceptable.

Janadele, the right of the "Negro male" to hold the Priesthood is not a social or political idea that needs to be supported or disputed. It is a revealed truth from God. It is completely beyond discussion. Our only option is to believe or disbelieve; "supporting the right" is not even part of the equation.

As far as claiming that "Jesus had Negro ancestry": I have not watched the videos and do not know what claims they made, so I cannot speak to the content of the videos. But I see nothing offensive in the idea; indeed, modern anthropological models could be said to imply that we all have "Negro" ancestry (meaning black African ancestry").

As far as the last few thousand years go, I know of no scripture or other suggestion that Jesus' ancestry included black Africans. Jesus was a Jew, and the Hebrew race was neither black nor African -- though I suppose there could have been black African ("Negro") proselytes. So the claim doesn't really strike me as well-documented or particularly likely. But I don't find it offensive.

[Just_A_Guy]

I am personally more bothered by the tactic Brother Perkins has apparently used in some of his recordings, of having missionaries in the audience read certain scriptures to which he then assigns highly tenuous interpretations (sending a subtle hint that the institutional Church backs him up). But I've griped about this before . . .

Incidentally: The flier similarly implies Church endorsement by using its logo, in violation of Church policy.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

I understand where you're coming from in terms of the flyer & logo. I'm not his priesthood authority/judge, so I will leave that to them.

With all the different wards & stakes he's presented, this flyer has been used with the same logo - and many Area Seventy. I think if it was an issue, someone would've mentioned it to him by now.

Another note: that fireside recording wasn't done by him. It was "secretly recorded" and then posted on YouTube. The only official recordings of him are on the link below in my signature file. Just a clarification.

[Irishcolleen]

I tried to listen to the videos presented on the site. There was a problem with the receiving of them, but the overall impression I had was not favourable. It is one thing supporting the right of the Negro male to hold the Priesthood, but to claim that Jesus Christ had Negro ancestry is not acceptable.

I was wondering if you have read Acts 17:26. It says God made of one blood all nations of men. The only difference between races is the amount of melanin in the skin, and that even varies within races. We all can trace our ancestry to 1 source, so we all have a shared ancestry,no matter what shade our skin is.

[Janadele]

There are many differing characteristics between races, not just the "shade" of the skin.

The Prieshood was with held from the Negro race, not other races of dark skin.

[skippy740]

Janadele,

In these latter days, when did African Americans begin to hold the priesthood?

[Vort]

The only difference between races is the amount of melanin in the skin, and that even varies within races.

FYI, this is factually incorrect.

[Irishcolleen]

FYI, this is factually incorrect.

have you read this article summarizing the work of Dr. Alan Templeton, biology professor at Washington University?

Biological differences among races do not exist, WU research shows

Templeton says, ""Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," Which is the point I am trying to make. People have justified racism by falsely attributing biological differences. The differences are the result of culture- not biology. The idea that it is shameful to think Christ may have had African genetic traits is to claim that Africans do not share in the nature of Christ. Are they not considered children of God?

Edited October 25, 2012 by Irishcolleen

[MarginOfError]

I tried to listen to the videos presented on the site. There was a problem with the receiving of them, but the overall impression I had was not favourable. It is one thing supporting the right of the Negro male to hold the Priesthood, but to claim that Jesus Christ had Negro ancestry is not acceptable.

It is possible that all of us have Negro ancestry. There has been some research to suggest that the earliest hominids had dark skin, in which case, it would be quite true that Christ had Negro ancestry.

[jerome1232]

have you read this article summarizing the work of Dr. Alan Templeton, biology professor at Washington University?

Biological differences among races do not exist, WU research shows

Templeton says, ""Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," Which is the point I am trying to make. People have justified racism by falsely attributing biological differences. The differences are the result of culture- not biology.

So people of different races react differently to specific medications and are vulnerable to specific diseases because of cultural influence? Not buying it.

Edited October 25, 2012 by jerome1232

[jerome1232]

As far as claiming that "Jesus had Negro ancestry": I have not watched the videos and do not know what claims they made, so I cannot speak to the content of the videos. But I see nothing offensive in the idea; indeed, modern anthropological models could be said to imply that we all have "Negro" ancestry (meaning black African ancestry").

He didn't claim Jesus had Nubian ancestry specifically, he categorized any darker skinned people as black (Egyptian, Hittite, etc....) He followed the line of Ham and he also noted men who married a woman from an area known to be darker skinned. I can't remember exactly but David married a Hittite I think, and this is where the drop of black blood comes from.

The point was to highlight the fact that there are black people of note in the scriptures. It was fairly interesting I thought.

[Vort]

have you read this article summarizing the work of Dr. Alan Templeton, biology professor at Washington University?

Biological differences among races do not exist, WU research shows

Templeton says, ""Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," Which is the point I am trying to make. People have justified racism by falsely attributing biological differences. The differences are the result of culture- not biology. The idea that it is shameful to think Christ may have had African genetic traits is to claim that Africans do not share in the nature of Christ. Are they not considered children of God?

Templeton is wrong. In pursuing a social agenda (perhaps a noble one), he is ignoring medical and biological realilty. Of course biological differences between "races" exist. To say otherwise is to refuse to acknowledge the truth when it is standing in front of you.

Perhaps Templeton meant, "Current race classifications are not as biologically useful as they might be if such classifications were more strictly based on genetic lines." But in that case, he should say so, and not make statements like that race doesn't exist biologically. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is simply stupid.

[Anddenex]

Templeton is wrong. In pursuing a social agenda (perhaps a noble one), he is ignoring medical and biological realilty. Of course biological differences between "races" exist. To say otherwise is to refuse to acknowledge the truth when it is standing in front of you.

Perhaps Templeton meant, "Current race classifications are not as biologically useful as they might be if such classifications were more strictly based on genetic lines." But in that case, he should say so, and not make statements like that race doesn't exist biologically. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is simply stupid.

I would actually agree with Templeton's view. We are all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, our primary parentage.

We have different skin tones, different body structures, different eye color, etc... due to our genetic differences, however this doesn't make my brother's or sister's any different race than I am.

Race is a cultural term, using genetics as its backbone.

[Anddenex]

So people of different races react differently to specific medications and are vulnerable to specific diseases because of cultural influence? Not buying it.

This is very interesting because children within the same family can respond to different diseases differently, as well as be more susceptible to different sicknesses as well.

If the argument is based on a specific reaction to different diseases by different races, the argument comes to a stand still when children within the same family respond differently as well.

How then does science distinguish the two? Why call one a different race, whereas within the same family, they are the same?

[Anddenex]

It is possible that all of us have Negro ancestry. There has been some research to suggest that the earliest hominids had dark skin, in which case, it would be quite true that Christ had Negro ancestry.

I have negro ancestry, or better said according to the DNA test my father took which specified him as 8% African American. I have been dying to get a DNA test also to see what my blood provides witness to.

I would also be curious to see my aunt's on my father's side to test theirs also.

EDIT: I have actually wondered if our African American ancestry actually comes through my Jewish line. My grandmother, Dad's side, her father was of the lineage of Judah. My jewish lineage stems from Saltiel, which is mentioned in the Bible.

The interesting thing about this is that when my father joined the church and when he received his PB, he felt that he would be named of the lineage of Judah, but wasn't. Then about 15 or so years later, my father was contacted by our Jewish cousins. My great grandfather was a man who traveled for business and apparently had more than one wife. My grandmother stems from his second wife. Interesting things genealogy teaches us about who we are.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Anddenex

[Vort]

I would actually agree with Templeton's view. We are all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, our primary parentage.

I'm pretty sure that is not Templeton's view.

We have different skin tones, different body structures, different eye color, etc... due to our genetic differences, however this doesn't make my brother's or sister's any different race than I am.

Untrue by definition. That's like saying, "There is no such thing as sex. We have different external genitalia and different reproductive capabilities, but that doesn't make someone else's sex any different from mine."

[Anddenex]

Untrue by definition. That's like saying, "There is no such thing as sex. We have different external genitalia and different reproductive capabilities, but that doesn't make someone else's sex any different from mine."

I don't believe Vort this is a good example of the two. This compares females to males, which automatically provides a different genetic code, but not a different race.

In essence, science is trying to tell me that although Seth and Cain, same parentage, same race, were brother's, now their offspring are different races because of different genetic markers.

Further down the line, depending on the interpretation of Noah and his family only being eight souls left, one being Ham's wife.

Thus from the son's of Ham, we now have different races even though they stem from the same parentage?

Science does allow us to see how we can help and give us different markers, but it doesn't dictate in the least a different race.

I am not disagreeing with the difference in genetics, I do disagree that our genetics make us a different race.

P.S. My bad on Templeton's view. I wasn't saying Templeton mentioned Adam and Eve. I agree with his term that race is a cultural statement. The Adam and Eve part was my explanation as to why I would agree with him.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Anddenex

[pam]

This particular forum is to provide news and announcements going on around the church. This is NOT a debate forum.