Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting
Log in changes to forums

Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

Maverick

By Maverick
in LDS Gospel Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

MarginOfError

MarginOfError

Posted
Posted

oh boy....

Quote

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. 

You've still got a problem here. You have to demonstrate that those interpretations were given when they were "moved upon by the Holy Ghost." You haven't managed to do that. You've only made the statement that you think they were. Contemporary church leaders would disagree with you.  Who should I believe? (that's a rhetorical question)

Quote

Moses 7 doesn't say that the curse fell upon them after this event. That's your interpretation.

Moses 7:7-8 says

7 And the Lord said unto me [Enoch]: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Enoch uses words that indicate the curse will happen in the future. To conclude that they are the same curse, you will need to demonstrate that Enoch lived before Cain killed Abel.

Quote

Many black Africans also lived in barren areas and most of Egypt is barren and unfruitful accept for around the Nile and especially the Nile delta. 

This doesn't really bolster your argument at all. You're effectively saying, "well, the land was cursed except for where it wasn't." 

Quote

Yes, ancient Egypt had diverse people living in it from different lineages and with different skin tones, etc. Abraham 1 is referring the 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 original Egyptians returned to power and drove out the Hyksos. It was these original Egyptians who enslaved the Hebrews. 

Again, not helping your case. The Hyksos wouldn't have been interested in the area if it didn't have value. What it seems like you're saying is that Egypt was barren until Hyksos kicked out the Canaanites. And then Egypt flourished. And then the Egyptians (Canaanites) came back, and the land continued to flourish.  Why didn't the curse return?

Quote

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 were mixed with them or dwelt with them. This is actually strong evidence that the two people and curses were the one and the same. 

See above where it is clear that the curse against Cain and the curse against Canaan are not the same curse. Furthermore, this doesn't establish a lineage between Cain and Egyptus. 

Quote

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.

 You can go make your arguments against my logic in the referenced thread. I won't entertain them here.

Quote

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. 

to be clear, my claim is not that this says something about Smith's attitude. My claim is that there is no evidence from Smith either way. It is at best inconclusive and uninformative. You should avoid saying anything that suggests it is. When you do, you look like you're proof texting.

Quote

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 know is how the Lord's seer who brought forth these scriptures to us understood them. 

That's really not as true as you think it is. but okay. Regardless, what the Lord's seer brought forth does not support your conclusion.

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Vort
Vort

I feel on both sides of the increasingly zigzagging fence with this thread, so to be clear, let me state my understandings and opinions: The so-called Priesthood ban was instituted by the high

Just_A_Guy
Just_A_Guy

My wife made that same point once.   I replied by telling her that she was being irrational and that she needed to calm down.

Just_A_Guy
Just_A_Guy

Marvin Perkins has argued—he thinks, convincingly—that BoM references to “black” or “white” have nothing to do with skin color.  

Posted Images

Carborendum

Carborendum

Posted
Posted

Between Noah and Joseph of Egypt, there was sufficient intermarrying that all of Egypt had mixed ethnicity.  And certainly, the aristocracy of Egypt would have been from the line of Egyptus/Ham. By the time of Jacob's son, Joseph, the Egyptians were a completely multi-ethnic people.  

Joseph took an Egyptian princess (Potiphar's daughter, Asenath) to wife.  She gave birth to both Ephraim and Menasseh. 

If we believe that the "curse" (if any) was transferred to the Egyptians through Egyptus, then we must also believe that all the restoration of the Gospel should never have happened through the line of Ephraim.

Since it did happen, we must conclude that this purported curse was not transferred to Ephraim.  If that is possible, the "one drop rule" is debunked.

zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

If your assumption that Canaan is not related to Cain, then you have a different problem.  Because nowhere in the Book of Abraham does it specify that Egyptus is a descendant of Cain.

:unsure: Confused by the first sencence.  I thought I was clearly laying out the reason I thought Canaan was related to Cain (via Egyptus).  [goes back to re-read stuff] Oh, you're right.  The idea of Egyptus being descended from Ham is so subconscious that I thought it was in the BD entry.  Well, that'll teach me to read instead of remember. :)  Huh.  Where on earth did I read that - I wouldn't have remembered it had I not read it (things I hear don't stay in my brain).  I'll have to poke around later, but for now, you're quite right.  Mistaken assumption.  Thanks!

zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Maverick said:

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.

You're welcome, but it turns out we were both wrong. :)

MarginOfError

MarginOfError

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

:unsure: Confused by the first sencence.  I thought I was clearly laying out the reason I thought Canaan was related to Cain (via Egyptus).  [goes back to re-read stuff] Oh, you're right.  The idea of Egyptus being descended from Ham is so subconscious that I thought it was in the BD entry.  Well, that'll teach me to read instead of remember. :)  Huh.  Where on earth did I read that - I wouldn't have remembered it had I not read it (things I hear don't stay in my brain).  I'll have to poke around later, but for now, you're quite right.  Mistaken assumption.  Thanks!

It's completely understandable. If you're my age or older (I sure hope you're not older than me..no one should have to suffer that indignity), you kind of grew up hearing these things. It happens to me, too.

Maverick

Maverick

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

You're welcome, but it turns out we were both wrong. :)

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

MarginOfError

MarginOfError

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Between Noah and Joseph of Egypt, there was sufficient intermarrying that all of Egypt had mixed ethnicity.  And certainly, the aristocracy of Egypt would have been from the line of Egyptus/Ham. By the time of Jacob's son, Joseph, the Egyptians were a completely multi-ethnic people.  

Joseph took an Egyptian princess (Potiphar's daughter, Asenath) to wife.  She gave birth to both Ephraim and Menasseh. 

If we believe that the "curse" (if any) was transferred to the Egyptians through Egyptus, then we must also believe that all the restoration of the Gospel should never have happened through the line of Ephraim.

Since it did happen, we must conclude that this purported curse was not transferred to Ephraim.  If that is possible, the "one drop rule" is debunked.

We can have more fun with this with genetics research. Genetics indicate that all humans came out of Africa, and that we all descended from black ancestors. 😁

zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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

The Guide to the Scriptures does not say that Egyptus was descended from Cain.  And black skin or blackness cannot be used to prove a relationship between Cain and Canaan - were that the case, it would also have to prove a relationship between Cain and the Lamanites.

I was going off an assumption (Egyptus' lineage) that I thought was scriptural, but it's not.  So there's no way to know either way whether there's a relationship there.

MarginOfError

MarginOfError

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The Guide to the Scriptures does not say that Egyptus was descended from Cain.  And black skin or blackness cannot be used to prove a relationship between Cain and Canaan - were that the case, it would also have to prove a relationship between Cain and the Lamanites.

I was going off an assumption (Egyptus' lineage) that I thought was scriptural, but it's not.  So there's no way to know either way whether there's a relationship there.

I hate to do this to you, because I really don't want you to think I'm picking on you. 

But.....(here I go picking on you anyway)...in fairness, the Guide to the Scriptures does in fact say "Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain;" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/ham?lang=eng

when you look at the sources on that, one of them is Abraham 1:23, 25...one that we already showed doesn't actually state that Egyptus is descended from Cain. That additional nugget is quite literally extra-scriptural.

The other two sources it uses for justification are from Psalm and basically just call Egypt the land of Ham. It doesn't make any tie between Ham's wife and Cain.

So you end up in a position of having to decide how faith you put into the "Guide to the Scriptures." Seeing as it isn't canonized, I put it in the 'tread carefully' category.

Edited by MarginOfError
originally wrote "...Egyptus is descended from Ham." Which, you know, duh.
zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

But.....(here I go picking on you anyway)...in fairness, the Guide to the Scriptures does in fact say "Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain;" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/ham?lang=eng

Curse the people who put these things together!!!  I went to the entry on Egyptus!  Which says:

Quote

The name of both the wife and a daughter of Ham, the son of Noah. In Chaldean, the name signifies “Egypt,” or “that which is forbidden” (Abr. 1:23–25).

They couldn't put the whole "descended from Cain" thing here instead of under Ham's entry!?  Sexism, I tell you!  Treating Egyptus like Ham's property.  Grrr! :angry2::angry:

:D Thank you once again!

9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

when you look at the sources on that, one of them is Abraham 1:23, 25...one that we already showed doesn't actually state that Egyptus is descended from Ham. That additional nugget is quite literally extra-scriptural.

Yeah, about the only thing you can do here is suppose that the "forbidden" meaning for Egyptus means she was a descendant of Cain because:

Quote

Moses 7:22 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.

..."must surely mean that Cain's seed were forbidden." - as if that were the only possible meaning...

Anywho, I'm now waiting for you to reveal the scripture that says we're all wrong and here's the real story. ;)

zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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

See my reply to @MarginOfError - leave it to men to go look up information about a woman under her husband's entry... :rolleyes:

MarginOfError

MarginOfError

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Anywho, I'm now waiting for you to reveal the scripture that says we're all wrong and here's the real story. ;)

That's easy enough to do. D&C 139:22 makes it very clear you should just listen to MOE and send him your life savings.

zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

That's easy enough to do. D&C 139:22 makes it very clear you should just listen to MOE and send him your life savings.

Hmm.  Send all my money to MOE, or send it to a German fountain pen store in exchange for a Montblanc Agatha Christie.  Decisions, decisions.  I'll have to get back to you. :hmmm:

zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My wife made that same point once.  

I replied by telling her that she was being irrational and that she needed to calm down.

I hope you were smart enough to not be within the "frying pan zone" when you said that.

Vort

Vort

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My wife made that same point once.  

I replied by telling her that she was being irrational and that she needed to calm down.

I literally laughed out loud.

Maverick

Maverick

Posted
  • Author
Posted
28 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Yes, now we just need them to become one entry in the index!

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. 

zil2

zil2

Posted
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Just look at the post that you were replying to.

I suppose you're making some bizarre hint at sex, but it's lost something in the translation.

ETA:

  

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
2 hours ago, zil2 said:

Yes, now we just need them to become one entry in the index!

A-hem.  That's "when entry".  :D 

Would translate to:

"Yes, now we just need them to become when entry in the index!"

It makes no sense.  I get from the grin that you're making a joke, but it's not working.

Edited by zil2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing