bible question: curse of Cain and Canaan(forget how to spell his name)

[rameumptom]

Job was not black. Neither were the Canaanites. Black is a metaphor in the scriptures mentioned above. "skin of blackness" is a metaphor, possibly even referring to the skins or clothing the people wore, rather than their own flesh. That Adam had a garment of animal skins, which in some ancient texts is described as white, suggests that we may be talking about a garment or symbol of being holy or evil, rather than actual human flesh color.

That the term "skin of blackness" is used in the Book of Mormon for Lamanites, who definitely were not black, also suggests something different. Here it can also mean a garment of some sort, or the darkness of the soul of the sinner.

We need to be careful not to read too much of our own personal beliefs, thoughts and prejudices into the scripture. I've seen people claim Jesus was a communist; Jesus was a hippy; Jesus was from outer space; Jesus was a Hindu master; etc. All of these ideas coming from the same Bible text, but each interpretation coming from a person's specific reading, rather than seeking the original intent of the author.

Canaanites were not black skinned. Period. To argue this is to wrest both the scriptures and science.

[rameumptom]

In Solomon's Song, the voice of Solomon says, "I am black but comely." Sounds like maybe any darkening of the skin might have been referred to as "black".

Vort, you clearly are misinterpreting Solomon's Song. It must obviously mean "I am black, and cursed." Clearly Solomon was somehow descended from Ham, perhaps via Bathsheba?

[CrimsonKairos]

rameumptom, don't take everything so personally. Who's reading prejudices into the scriptures? Somehow you're concluding that if I thought Canaanites in Africa developed black skin after their land was cursed with heat, that I somehow hate blacks or think the priesthood ban on blacks in our day was justified. Which is the most incorrect assumption you could make.

You don't need to turn a scripture discussion into an argument about who is prejudiced and who isn't, don't take it personally.

I've been citing scriptures, archeology (because I know it's so important to you) and logic to discuss Moses 7. It is disappointing to have you retreat by saying, "Your evidence is garbage and your logic is screwed up but most damning of all, CrimsonKairos, you are projecting your prejudices onto the scriptures. Shame on you!"

Uh, okay. Guess this discussion will have to end with an "agree to disagree" since you're obviously no longer interested in even-handed discourse.

Just a hint for the future: I wouldn't recommend the thought process of, "If someone disagrees with me, it must be because they are prejudiced and ignorant." Intelligent people disagree with each other all the time. Have fun reading and interpreting the scriptures.

[rameumptom]

I did not mention you being prejudiced, nor do I think you are. I am showing how a bad intepretation of scripture can create many meanings. Brigham Young was a racist, but so were most people in the 19th century. For some reason, the scriptures were misinterpreted and read in such a way as to justify a priesthood ban.

Last year, a BYU professor (Randy Bots) was interviewed and used the old party line about the curse of black skin. The Church immediately came out with a statement saying we do not believe that concept. We simply know that there was a ban and it required a revelation to lift the ban. That is the Church's official position.

With that as the Church's official position, members do not have to justify Canaanites being black in order to justify the ban. That is where I disagree with you. You are attempting to teach something that the Church has said is not true. The archaeology you claim to be using has nothing to do with the claims you are making. You may as well be stating: there is gravity in Africa, therefore the Canaanites are black. The first statement is true, but has nothing to do with the latter as far as we can tell.

There are many peoples that live in hot, dry and sunny places, and are not black skinned. So, your statements from Moses do not apply. It is one thing to say, "it is raining, therefore the ground is wet." It is another thing to say, "this patch of ground is wet, therefore it is raining." The two are not equal.

Again, I did not suggest nor think you are prejudiced. I did suggest that you experience faulty logic, as the answers you give do not follow from the examples you provide.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW: There's a difference between "something the Church has said is not true" versus "something the Church has not said is true" or even "something the Church has said is non-authoritative speculation".

"We don't know" means "we don't know". It does not mean "we don't know, but the Church obviously (but secretly) agrees with one particular faction". (That's why I find Marvin Perkins' antics so troubling, from his recorded lectures that I've heard.)

Science and archaeology are what they are; and perhaps someday the Church will weigh in. Until it does, we should probably distinguish between the Church's (pardon the term) agnosticism versus the scientific and social certitude that seems to prevail in these types of discussions.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Last year, a BYU professor (Randy Bots) was interviewed and used the old party line about the curse of black skin. The Church immediately came out with a statement saying we do not believe that concept.

To be clear, they said that the Church does not teach that idea and that Dr. Bots spoke for himself, not the Church. They did not say the idea was false.

You are attempting to teach something that the Church has said is not true.

You are wrong. The Church has never proclaimed this teaching to be untrue.

[CrimsonKairos]

With that as the Church's official position, members do not have to justify Canaanites being black in order to justify the ban. That is where I disagree with you. You are attempting to teach something that the Church has said is not true.

This is what is very, very frustrating to me. Despite what I believe are clearly worded, lucid posts from me, you continue to insist that I'm talking about or trying to justify the priesthood ban on people of African descent.

I will give you one million dollars cash if you can find even one instance where the substance of my posts has been, "And because of Moses chapter 7, that's why blacks were banned by Pres. Young from having the priesthood until 1978."

That's what infuriates me, you keep arguing against something I've never even said! You're so zealous to take up the Church's new position that you're seeing boogey-men in my posts where none exist. Try reading something twice before you comment on it, perhaps that way you'll actually get what I'm trying to say. :)

I did suggest that you experience faulty logic, as the answers you give do not follow from the examples you provide.

Likewise.

[Vort]

That the term "skin of blackness" is used in the Book of Mormon for Lamanites, who definitely were not black, also suggests something different.

Not so sure about this. Full-blooded American Indians have very dark skin compared to Europeans and even to those of Middle Eastern descent, especially if they're outdoors all day.

We need to be careful not to read too much of our own personal beliefs, thoughts and prejudices into the scripture.

I could not agree more, especially where sociopolitical ideology is involved. But it is unavoidable that we do so to some extent.

Canaanites were not black skinned. Period. To argue this is to wrest both the scriptures and science.

I expect you are right, though you are probably overstating the case. We don't have photographic evidence from the time period. But the racial ideas of "Canaanite" meaning "black African" and "cursed from God" appear to be unfounded.

I believe that the term "Canaan" originates from a Hebrew or proto-Hebrew word meaning "low" or "lowlands" or some such thing, which was applied to an area and then to those who lived in that area. We consider the term to come from Ham's son Canaan, but it's possible that Canaan himself simply took the name as an identifier when he settled in the region, much like Robin Hood becomes Lord Mountebank upon assuming lordship of the Mountebank region.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Vort

[bytor2112]

I did not mention you being prejudiced, nor do I think you are. I am showing how a bad intepretation of scripture can create many meanings. Brigham Young was a racist, but so were most people in the 19th century. For some reason, the scriptures were misinterpreted and read in such a way as to justify a priesthood ban.

Pretty strong accusation of one of the Lord's great Prophets. I wonder if President Monson would concur with your description of President Young as a racist? That would make the church...racist since it was led by a racist leader...called from God?

Just out of curiosity....which of our other past Prophets and Apostles would you classify as racist?

Edited April 23, 2013 by bytor2112

[trubludru]

:digowngrave:

Pretty strong accusation of one of the Lord's great Prophets. I wonder if President Monson would concur with your description of President Young as a racist?

Just out of curiosity....which of our other past Prophets and Apostles would you classify as racist?

I am loath to jump into this fray...but I'd be cautious with this argument. What I infer from part of your argument is that you think the Prophets and Apostles are infallible in all of their thoughts and actions. Some of them may of well had some racist ideas or tendencies. Some of them have certainly had issues that led to excommunication (see Oliver Cowdery, Thomas B. Marsh, Matthias Cowley). Others have certainly mentioned that they were aware of their own faults and frailities (Mormon, Moroni).

Elder Anderson said in the Nov 2012 Ensign that "A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men." (emphasis by me)

I am not saying that the Prophets and Apostles aren't really good and righteous men or that we shouldn't respect and honor them. I just think sometimes they get put on the pedestal of being entirely perfect when we know they are not. Accoding to FAIR, Ezra Taft Benson seemed to be of the opinion that the Civil Rights Movement was a front for communism while Hugh B Brown greatly supported it as a good thing. They both made public statements supporting their opinion, which one was right? Is it possible that Ezra Taft Benson had personal opinions that may have influenced his perception of something else? Maybe Brigham Young sometimes had personal opinions that influenced his perceptions about race.

[Suzie]

Brigham Young was the product of his era. And yes, it includes the fact that some of his opinions about black people would be considered racist in the present time.

[bytor2112]

I am loath to jump into this fray...but I'd be cautious with this argument. What I infer from part of your argument is that you think the Prophets and Apostles are infallible in all of their thoughts and actions. Some of them may of well had some racist ideas or tendencies. Some of them have certainly had issues that led to excommunication (see Oliver Cowdery, Thomas B. Marsh, Matthias Cowley). Others have certainly mentioned that they were aware of their own faults and frailities (Mormon, Moroni).

No....I fully appreciate that we are all, prophets included, flawed and fallible. What I disdain is stating as matter of fact that Brigham Young was a racist. There are IMHO , much better ways to express an opinion, as in Suzies comment below, which I find much more appropriate.

Quote:Brigham Young was the product of his era. And yes, it includes the fact that some of his opinions about black people would be considered racist in the present time.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have no problem with the idea that Church leaders can be products of their eras; but I do get somewhat skittish when we suggest that temporary and flawed cultural attitudes could have led them to lead the Church into a major error. My concern is that it begs the question of what errors the Church may be perpetuating now due to flawed cultural attitudes.

In my experience, theological liberals don't mind that question because--like their secular counterparts--they imagine themselves and their ideals as sitting perpetually at the apex of history. Society, in their minds, will only become ever more egalitarian and permissive; and the only question is how long it will take for the Church to catch up.

Liberals never ask what would happen if society took a harsh turn to the right. For example, if US society became radically Islamicized to the point where slavery and traditional gender roles and restrictions were re-instituted; would the Church be obligated to take those socio-cultural developments as manifestations of the Will of God and therefore "modernize" itself by re-instituting the priesthood ban and polygamy?

If a religion's designated oracles are not viewed as in some way transcending time, space, and culture (at least to the extent that they actually guide the religion, if not in their individual capacities); then they would seem to be meaningless and, to a large degree, useless.

[bytebear]

Brigham Young was the product of his era. And yes, it includes the fact that some of his opinions about black people would be considered racist in the present time.

I think the accusation is completely and utterly unfair even with the disclaimer of "in the present time". The simple truth was that for Brigham Young and every other citizen of the United States of America at the time, blacks were property. Period. And if you were born in the 1800s in the South you likely would have no issue with that fact. The accusation of racism with no cultural or historical context is unfair at best, dishonest an naive at worst. It shows a true lack of understanding history. The fact is Brigham Young was simply typical of the day, and Joseph Smith was actually well ahead of his time. Brigham Young wasn't particularly outstanding in his statements. He didn't encourage slavery any more than anyone else, nor petition for blacks to be treated poorly. His actions certainly showed a compassion to non-whites, particularly with the Native Americans, and in providing means for slaves to purchase their freedom. If you cannot get past those facts, then I think the discussion ends, because there is no where to go in any kind of reasonable way.

Edited April 24, 2013 by bytebear

[Suzie]

I think the accusation is completely and utterly unfair even with the disclaimer of "in the present time".

What accusation?

The simple truth was that for Brigham Young and every other citizen of the United States of America at the time, blacks were property. Period. And if you were born in the 1800s in the South you likely would have no issue with that fact.

Nobody is disputing that, your point?

The accusation of racism with no cultural or historical context is unfair at best, dishonest an naive at worst. It shows a true lack of understanding history. The fact is Brigham Young was simply typical of the day, and Joseph Smith was actually well ahead of his time.

I understand history quite well, and I think I know a little bit about Church history. No offense, but I think it is you who did not understand my post properly or read it all wrong because I actually agree with you. I said Brigham Young was a product of his era, meaning his way of thinking was typical of a 19th century man so we shouldn't "judge" him using modern views about race. However, it doesn't change the fact that his views ARE considered "racist" in the present time. That's a fact.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Suzie

[Vort]

Pretty strong accusation of one of the Lord's great Prophets. I wonder if President Monson would concur with your description of President Young as a racist? That would make the church...racist since it was led by a racist leader...called from God?

Just out of curiosity....which of our other past Prophets and Apostles would you classify as racist?

Agreed. I get so tired of people trying to prove their dispassion and impartiality by calling great and Godly men of the past nasty names. Justice dictates that such people will be forever disparaged by future generations because they failed to comply to the future generations' ideas of perfection.

[skippy740]

Pretty strong accusation of one of the Lord's great Prophets. I wonder if President Monson would concur with your description of President Young as a racist? That would make the church...racist since it was led by a racist leader...called from God?

Just out of curiosity....which of our other past Prophets and Apostles would you classify as racist?

I could make a list... but it wouldn't do a BIT of good AT ALL.

They were great men, called of God, CONVERTED (not born in) to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and were also a product of their time.

It's not fair to put today's standards upon those of the past.

[trubludru]

I think the point is that we shouldn't be looking to find fault or discredit church leaders simply because of their personal opinions and experiences which lead them to say or do things that aren't totally correct from time to time. However, they doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that they do make mistakes in things they say or have personal opinions that we may mistake for doctrine.

I think the key point in the quote from Elder Anderson I shared is that as a whole we can recognize the doctrine by what the Apostles preach as a whole. Despite things Brigham Young said that we may consider rascist in our time, I don't think he or the other leaders of his time devoted a large portion of their preaching about slavery or race. Wouldn't the truth be closer to that the topic came up from time to time and Brigham Young said things that were typical for his day and age that we can realize now were perhaps more opinion than doctrine? Now if Brigham Young mostly spent his time telling people that blacks were inferior or suffering from the curse of Cain rather than preaching about baptism, repentance, authority of the priesthood and the atonement, etc. then I think there might be a problem.