I have heard it said that the reason most Blacks had the priesthood withheld from them throughout the late 1800s and the mid 1900s was because they were cursed with the Curse of Cain. If this is true, why did Spencer W. Kimball not mention such a curse had been lifted when gave the Official Declaration that all worthy male members of the Church could hold the priesthood?
Curse of Cain
Pres. McKay taught that the ban was policy, not doctrine. If so, no revelation was needed to overturn it. I believe what Pres. Kimball was praying for was that the hearts of holdout apostles be softened so that the ban could be lifted by unanimous consent among the leadership rather than by First Presidency edict.
Since the bogus and speculative explanations of mark of Cain and/or conduct in the preexistence are still embarrassingly repeated to this day, some official rebuttal is long overdue. But that is not the LDS way. Pres. Hinckley’s recent remarks are all we can expect given our uncandid tradition in such matters.
That’s my two cents.
Despite believing it was a policy, President McKay felt that a revelation was necessary for it to be overturned.
Kim, I find it hilarious that you still think there’s a “yes” or “no” answer to your questions when they contain meaningless terms such as “retroactive effect.” Until you define what “retroactive effect” President Hinckley’s comments could have—which you so far devoutly refuse to do—there can’t be an answer. So if it amuses you to try to corner me into “yes” or “no” then have fun. But if you want the discussion to have any actual value, then ask a question that actually makes sense.
ltbugaf
Yes, but you always ignore everything you don’t like and blissfully pretend to have all the answers. Sometimes I wonder if you are 12.
If he wants the discussion to have any actual value, he would probably ban you from commenting, because in the main, you flit around the issue and call names and accuse, etc etc. Just because you don’t think it makes sense, doesn’t mean it doesn’t, it just means you don’t understand it. Funny, no one else seems to have that problem.
I don’t know why I’m bothering Lt, but here we go.
A prophet at conference does one of a few things. He either reminds us of eternal truths in light of today’s worls and exhorts us to be obedient to these truths; or he shares new doctrines/ policies. You are assuming that president Hinckley’s charge to condemn racism is a new revelation, which obviously has no effect any past person. Kim and I and most people of sound mind assume anti-racism is an eternal truth. The words every nation kindred color and people from the scriptures come to my mind.
If what YOU are saying is true than I would be perfectly justified as a racist before April 6, 2006 and would have to stop after this. I hope you see the flaw in that. Racism is not something that is OK at times, it is either good or evil.
Sometimes good people do evil things ignorantly due to circumstance. Refusing to admit mistake in these case allows for more hurt and damage to the victims of this ignorance.
You still haven’t answered yet as to whetehr you believe that the Curse of Cain is or was true.
Mary, you’re right.
I’m twelve. I don’t read anything on this blog. I just call names. See all the names I called everyone in this thread alone? Theres… Uh… Hmm. You’ll have to help me find them, but I have no doubt you can.
And of course, asking Kim to simply define what he means when he talks about a “retroactive effect” means that I haven’t paid any attention to Kim’s comments and am avoiding the issue.
Everyone else is able to read a question filled with undefined terms and give a yes or no question to it. I’m the only one who has a problem. There’s no reason Kim should ever define terms like “retroactive effect” because only the dimmest of dimwits doesn’t immediately know what he means. In fact, I’m sure there’s a long line of commenters who are just about to explain it, right?
One more thing you’re right about, Mary: If Kim wants the discussion to be meaningful, he must ban me forever, immediately. (Hmm. He hasn’t banned me, though. So does that mean he doesn’t want meaningful discussion? I don’t know—just not bright enough to figure that sort of thing.)
If anyone out there actually proposes that the comments quoted above were intended by President Hinckley as a condemnation of every President of the Church from the time of Brigham Young through the 1978 revelation, then I guess this may be what Kim means by “retroactive effect”—that President Hinckley was asking us to view all those leaders who ever believed the Priesthood should be withheld from blacks as evil men who were unworthy to exercise the Priesthood. (If that’s the case, it puts me in a false church, but why quibble? I’m probably just being too nitpicky.)
As for John Scherer’s question, I’ll need you to define what you mean by “Curse of Cain,” because that term has a clearly malleable definition on this ‘blog. Let me proceed, though on the basis of addressing the larger implications of your question: You’re asking me whether I believe that Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter and Gordon B. Hinckley—every one of whom was a general authority during the period before the Priesthood was given to blacks, and every one of whom supported the practice of the Church before 1978—was evil, or lying, or deluded, or some combination of the three. My answer is no. I don’t think they were wrong before 1978, and I don’t think they are wrong after.
“You are assuming that president Hinckley’s charge to condemn racism is a new revelation…”
No, I don’t assume his remarks contained a revelation of any variety.
You see, Kim gives you the benfit of the doubt mainly. On this thread you haven’t called names, but you do elsewhere and as I said, everyone else seems to be able to understand what he is saying, but for some reason, you do not.
Having had 12 year old brothers (4)at different times in my life (though now they are 30, 28, 26 and 22 and usually don’t act 12 anymore though they probably have their moments) sometimes your remarks seem eerily similar to their way of thinking at that age.
No doubt about it, you read me like a book. For a list of my other qualities, read comments 93-95 on the “Church Purging” thread. Bill’s perceptiveness was too much for me there, as well.
I am not claiming to know everything about you. I refer to a few comments you periodically make when you decide not to address the thread, the comments or the post directly. Not sure why.
Again, I’ve already pointed out how right you are: Asking Kim to define the terms he uses in his question (that is, the question over which he’s been wheedling me for a yes or no answer) is obviously, as you said, deciding “not to address the thread.”
ltbugaf,
Did you even read the comment I posted with my questions? Did you notice that only one of them says anythign about retroactivity? If you don’t want to address that one, feel free to answer the others.
By “retoractive effect”, I meant “something brought about by a cause or agent by influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment”.
In #33 ltbugaf said: George, the religion of Peter and Paul was from the same God that taught Moses. The revelation announced by Spencer Kimball was from the same God, too. Why you call it a “new religion†I’m really not sure.
Ltbugaf – Do you really believe the religion practiced by Moses is the practiced the same way by LDS today. Of course not. The religion of Moses is different than the religion of Joesph Smith. The LDS religion of 2006 is different thant is was 30 years ago. Does not make it wrong – just makes it different.
But then you might practice a different religion than he rest of us do. I bar-b-que and you cook your meat over an alter. Burnt Offerings is called well done.
Interesting concept in # 48 “ltbugaf said: Does anyone out there actually think that President Hinckley intends to condemn every significant Priesthood leader in the Church from the time of Brigham Young all the way through to the 1978 revelation as arrogant men who should not be considered true disciples of Christ?”
Let’s examine ltbugaf’s statement:
If the Curse of Cain is currently not a true doctrine could it have been true doctrine at one time?
Since it was an approved subject taught in Church, does it not call into question why church leaders would allow such false doctrine to be taught on such a large scale and for such a long period of time? What other false doctrine did they also allow to prosper among the saints? Multiple wives?
How does the saying that the Lord will not allow the Prophet to lead the Saints astray work? It would seem the people were lead astray with the Curse of Cain. Why did the Lord not kill the Prophets that taught false doctrine?
Could it be that the Curse of Cain was true doctrine and then the Lord changed the doctrine?
Are there other examples of were the Lord/Prphet changed the doctrine to suit the time period?
“something brought about by a cause or agent by influencing or applying to a period prior to enactmentâ€.
Now, can you explain what that means in the context of this question? In what way does—or can—President Hinckley’s remarks at the last General Conference apply to the prior period?
Bill, you started out saying you were going to examine my statement. Are you going to start doing that at some point?
“Did you even read the comment I posted with my questions?”
How could I? As Mary has pointed out, I don’t read anything.
Or maybe she didn’t say that…I’ve lost track of who accuses what.
No, I didn’t say that.
Maybe it was just me. I’ve gotten so used to gonig along with what everyone says about me, I may have started going along before anyone said it.
The only thing I say about you is that you have a tendency to be mean to others, if they don’t agree with your points of view. However, you also seem to have a tendency to get defensive when anyone at all disagrees with you or objects to your method of debate (which often involves personal attacks). This is my objection to your method of communication. Oh yes, sorry, and you avoid issues you are either wrong on (instead of conceding) or misunderstand comments, whether on purpose or by accident. Which is why I say sometimes you seem like a 12 year old. Children have a tendency to avoid remarks, answers and questions not to their liking.
Yes, Mary, I think we’re all clear, after many repetitions on several threads, that you think I act like a twelve-year-old. I’m pretty sure the point has gotten across.
Perhaps you’ll compile a list of all the comments I make that you believe are “personal attacks.”
(Or, as an alternative, we could stop devoting the thread to discussion of what you hate about me and talk about the topic. Whichever you prefer is fine with me.)
Now, if you wanted a real example of a rude, condescending, name-calling attack, you might look at #18 over on the “Women Porn Addiction” thread.
I don’t have time to do that.
I never said I hate anything about you.
I don’t see why that is a rude comment? Rick made a comment on his opinion. Just because I, or you, do not share it doesn’t make it rude, condescending or name-calling.
Besides that ltbugaf, you seem to think I am the only one with this opinion. I take issue when anyone is nasty and mean, just a tendency I have.
And again you are being condescending to me. If you don’t like me saying this, then don’t be a meanie.
When I was on my mission, I was asked by my Mission President to talk to an Elder from Africa
A non-member had asked why that Elder would be in a church that “did not allow blacks to hold the Priesthood.” Unfortunately, the poor Elder had never been taught that we could not hold the priesthood.
I was chosen to speak to this Elder because I was My family were converts to the church 4 years before the revelation.
I bore my testimony to him, that the Book of Mormon was true, and that if he knew that also, everthing else would fall into place. I also got permision for him to call my dad and have him bear his testimony. My dad told him the same thing. It didn’t matter what was taught, what peoples opinion’s were, etc. The fact is, the church is true.
After lots of thought and prayer, the Elder decided to stay and complete his mission.
What I am trying to get at is it doesn’t matter the reason why my family and I couldn’t hold the priesthood before 1978.
Speculation as to why is interesting, but it leads to people not talking about blacks not holding the priesthood. It is not something for which we as members should be ashamed.
It just is a fact.
I sometimes wonder if members are ashamed to talk about some aspects of church history, and that’s why this elder never heard about that part of our church history.
Coinidentally, we both attended Ricks College before being called to the same Mission, and even despite religion classes, he was never taught this.
Sorry for rambling on…
PeterN
You weren’t rambling. Your comments are on the mark. There are reasons we may one day know. There are things we don’t understand, but you are right, none of that matters because the gospel is true.
Re: #73, “Besides that ltbugaf, you seem to think I am the only one with this opinion.”
Not at all. Lots of people think I’m horrible. Just read virtually everything that comes from Bill or Rick, for example. In fact, as near as I can tell, almost no one on the blog has much respect for me, my beliefs, or my loyalty to Priesthood leaders. But I’m willing to live with that, if my efforts to defend them from attack can keep just one person from following Bill, Rick, et al, down the road of reviling Priesthood leaders as false, cruel, deluded, and so forth.
I guess there’s never going to be a response to #64?
ltbugaf – Who the heck do you think you are? Mighty Mouse? Do you have a theme song? “Here I come to save the day, Mighty Mouse is on his way”.
Get Real – No one is going follow me into all the garbage you are making up. There is nothing wrong with asking why something happens or does not happen. The problem is when members or leaders pretend things are not the way there are.
I personally think your rantings do far more harm than anything I could possible ask questions about. You insult people, you call them names, you demand answer to such stupid things like # 64. Why don’t you try to be more Christ like? After all you claim to follow him. I doubt Jesus would treat anyone the way you do.
When you sit at Church and take the sacrament, do you think about how awful you treat people and do you think you are doing God’s will?
People like you are the ones who cause others to leave the Church and find God’s love somewhere else because it sure is where you are.
You need to repent buddy. You are evil to the core and the worst part is you hide it pretending to be religious.
I think I’ll just let that last statement speak for itself.
Thanks for not engaging in personal attacks.
Bill, I’m also trying to understand why you dismiss my question in #64 as “stupid.” But of course, being vastly inferior to you in intelligence, wisdom, righteousness and experience, I’ll probably never grasp your meaning fully.
Re: # 64 – Reword it so I don’t have to read previous writings to try and understand what you mean.
As long as you are caught up in thought that you are more righteous than others and you preach false doctrine, you will never understand what the true meaning is when people speak of the Love of God.
A vast majority of members are caught up in thinking their works will exault them. Many Church Leaders also get caught up in it. Your works do not promote you. Your works should be a reflection of your love for Christ. You do it out of love not reward. Big difference.
HT should be done because you love the families not at the end of the month for numbers. Just an example.
The gateway to heaven is not about what mighty and high church calling you have held. It is through your love for Christ and God and how you treated others.
Are you familiar with the doctrine of CALLING AND ELECTION MADE SURE?
You need to study it and see if you are on the correct path to get there.
Traditions/callings do not get you there and that is where you want to be.
“# 64 – Reword it so I don’t have to read previous writings to try and understand what you mean.”
How about, instead, we let Kim answer it, since the question is directed to him.
“As long as you are caught up in thought that you are more righteous than others…”
No, no. I said YOU were vastly more righteous than I am. Remember?
“A vast majority of members are caught up in thinking their works will exault them.”
This is impressive. I used to think your mind-reading powers extended only to me, but I see now that you can tell what a vast majority of Church members are thinking. Is there anyone whose thoughts you CAN’T read?
Oh, sorry—just one more thing. Could you help me start following the instructions you gave in #78 and #81? Here’s what I need help with:
– You mentioned that I “preach false doctrine.” Would you mind quoting the passages where I did so? (That way I’ll know exactly what you’re referring to and can avoid teaching any non-Bill-approved doctrines in the future.) For instance, would it be false doctrine, say, to teach that ordination to the office of High Priest is not about righteousness but just about keeping power in the hands of an elite group of men?
– You also mention that I “insult people.” Would you mind doing the same—just identify exactly where the insults are and how they’re worded, so I can avoid them. For instance, would it be insulting to tell people they’re “evil to the core”? Or to tell them, any and every time they disagree with me, that they’re just “not open to the truth”? Just need a little guidance here.
– Also in #78, you say I call people names. I wonder if you could give me a list of all the names I’ve called people on this blog—pick any thread you like. For instance, would it be wise to avoid using ethnic slurs such as “turban-head”? Or to equate people’s most precious beliefs with the Taliban?
I know this may take some time, but I’d appreciate the help.
Seems to me that the way we interpret a lot of these changes has to do with our personal perspective. I served a mission in southern Africa just prior to the ’78 revelation on the priesthood. At that time there were a number of congregations of blacks that had self-organized a “Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints” and were petitioning the SLC Church for contact and information on how to operate. So, from my particular perspective, the revelation was for them. I didn’t think it had much at all to do with social pressue in the US, which had been going on for many decades. And I’d never even heard about the Brazil connection. And maybe the readiness of the general Church population had something to do with it too. This was undoubtly a more complex issue than each of use might have realized at the time.
There still seems to be a sense that if some outside event prompted a revelation, the revelation is less legitimate. Apparently people have more confidence in revelation that comes completely unexpected and out of nowhere, than in revelation that comes in answer to a question that is urgent because of current circumstances and answers an important question. There were several things going on in the world—including some social pressure in the US (which has been exaggerated in many of these discussions) and also including concerns about how to expand the Church in Brazil and Africa. Those issues put the question very much on the mind of President Kimball, and he sought the will of the Lord. Like other Prophets who had also sought His will on the same question (such as David O. McKay), President Kimball received an answer. Answers to questions—the best kind of revelation there is.
In Genesis 9:25-27 Noah becomes drunk and his son Ham sees his father asleep and drunk. When Noah awakes he curses Ham’s son Canaan. In all 3 verses it mentions that Canaan will be a servant to Shem (father of the Jews) and Japheth (father of the gentiles).
In Genesis 9:26 there is a notion about Canaan that Joesph Smith added in JST Genesis 9:30 “…and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all me”.
In the additonal scripture, does JS imply that Canaan had black skin? Is this another example of the curse of cain being introduced into the Mormon culture?
Bill, by “Mormon culture,” do you mean “Mormon scripture”? You’re not quoting from an encyclopedia of culture. After all, this isn’t a recipe or a quilt pattern. It’s a passage from the Joseph Smith Translation.
Itbugaf – You seem pretty smart. Answer this Curse of Cain for me. Why would Noah have cursed his grandson (Canaan) for the sin of his father Ham? Ham saw his father Noah naked while Noah was drunk.
Why was it important for Canaan to have a veil of darkness cover him that he shall be known among all men since everyone on earth was part of the same extended family?
“You seem pretty smart.”
How can that be true? You’ve found my comments nothing but stupid until now.
I disagree with you on your last remark. I find your answers well thought out from a non-forgiving point of view. I disagree with you belitting others point of view with none important issues. With that being said – please answer # 88.
Hmm. No.
There are a couple of reasons for this refusal, but the most important one is that any answer I give will be pure speculation. God hasn’t answered those questions. We can speculate till the moon turns blue and it will do us no good.
I was taught that Ham’s wife was from the loins of Cain and Shems children carried the curse of cain.
If someone from Cains loins was not on the Ark, then there would not have been anyone to carry on the curse of cain.
Was Noah’s curse on Canaan justification for slavery?
Noah’s curse on Canaan was used by Protestants to justify enslaving blacks. This idea then transmitted into the church by cultural means as a justification for not ordaining blacks. There never was a lineal “curse of Cain.” It’s a false idea that arose around 1852.
I don’t buy that there never was a lineal “Curse of Cain”.
How does Abraham 1:21-27 not fit into the lineal Curse of Cain?
24 – …from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
26 – …Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessing of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 – Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, …
This scripture was before the 1850’s and is supposed to have been written by Abraham himself.
So, if we take the book of Abraham as truth, then there was/is a lineal Curse of Cain.
Why would the doctrine no longer be considered sound doctrine if it is found in the scriptures?
The Curse of Cain is in Genesis (JST) as well as P of GP (Abraham).
Both of these were translations of Joesph Smith and before the 1850’s.
Where did Protestants get their justification for enslaving blacks from? They did not have JST or P of GP?
Bill, which verse says the Pharaoh or Ham’s wife were black?
Bill asks where Protestants got their justificaton for apartheid, slave trade in blacks, and forbidding interracial marriage, . That would be Genesis 9:25-27 which says Canaan will be a servant to Shem. These interpretations are now disowned by almost all Protestants.
Of course, those 18th-century Protestants were completely avoiding the fact that Canaan is the father of the Canaanites: Jebusite, Amorite, Girgasite, Hivite, Arkite, and Sinite: those whom Abraham lives among and Joshua kicks out.
Did you notice that you left out that Pharoah’s genealogy is given as son of Egyptus, daughter of Noah (v. 25) and that he would fain (attempt, try) claim the PATRIARCHAL priesthood of Noah through his mother that way (v. 27) The priesthood, which is also a right to rule, is always positively identified by the lineage that can hold it, in this case patrilineal sons of Noah.
the curse preserved in the land could be many things, including idolatry.
Kim asked – Bill, which verse says the Pharaoh or Ham’s wife were black?
Moses 7:22 – And Enoch also beheld the residue of 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.
moA said – Did you notice that you left out that Pharoah’s genealogy is given as son of Egyptus, daughter of Noah (v. 25) and that he would fain (attempt, try) claim the PATRIARCHAL priesthood of Noah through his mother that way (v. 27) The priesthood, which is also a right to rule, is always positively identified by the lineage that can hold it, in this case patrilineal sons of Noah.
moA – The part you are leaving out is that everyone on the earth was fathered by one of the sons of Noah. Egyptus, daughter of Noah had to get PG by one of the men on the earth, so the children of Egyptus should have claim the right of the PH thru the father unless the Curse of Cain was in their lineage which it was.
See remarks above about the seed of Cain were BLACK.
That verse says that Cain’s descendants were black. Are you suggesting that Pharaoh and Egyptus (the older) were descended from Cain? Which scripture says this?
For the record, I didn’t realise that Egyptus was a daughter of Noah; I thought she was a daughter-in-law of Noah.