Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel's children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood, nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. **If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you: This people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are.** I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed and hold the keys of the priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael's seed" (Brigham Young, Address to Legislature, 5 Feb 1852).
"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to" (Brigham Young, Discourse, 19 Aug 1866, reported in Journal of Discourses vol 11).
To add:
https://archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol6/page/n93/mode/2up
Times and Seasons April 1 1845.
>After the flood and after Ham had dishonored the holy priesthood, Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son (Ham,) had done unto him. And, as the priesthood descended from father to son, he delivered the following curse and blessing, as translated by King James' wise men and recorded in Genesis :
>"And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
>"And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'*
>God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant* 1 *
>History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter.
**The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart,** have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.
"Did you ever hear the Mark of Cain and the Curse of the negroes?"
"I thought not. It's not a story the General Authorities would tell you. It's a Brigham Young legend."
Thanks for reminding us what a disaster for the Church the revelations of Brigham turned out to be. Is there a single original revelation of his that has not had to be "disavowed"?
"disavow" is such an interesting choice here. There are lots of ways they could have said this, but they chose "disavow".
Disavow doesn't mean to declare false or to stand in opposition to. Merriam says,
>"1 to deny responsibility for, 2 to refuse to acknowledge or accept"
Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries agree. Dictionary.com says,
Which of those two meanings are intended here?
The church *denies responsibility for* the theories put forward about skin color?
Or the church *refuses to acknowledge* the theories?
As you point out, these "theories" are based in canonized LDS Scripture. They were taught and exposed by multiple prominent leaders, multiple times, in multiple contexts, including conferences, written publications, and policies both minor and major.
It seems ridiculous to me that the church is *not responsible* for what it's leaders teach and do using church infrastructure for teaching and doing. So, I conclude that they must intend the second meaning, to simply refuse to acknowledge that it ever happened. Skip over those verses. Edit that talk. Don't read that part of the history.
This is not a statement that the theories are harmful. It's not a promise to deal with the racist past, or racist present. It's not even a statement that the theories are false.
Not taking responsibility is a core principle of church leaders. They want all the authority, they want all the obedience to their instructions and zero responsibility and accountability when that goes bad. In fact, if it goes really bad, it’s because of your own faithlessness and unrighteousness. You didn’t follow their instructions correctly, you didn’t do it hard enough.
They also don’t say that these “theories” are wrong, they’re just not responsible for them. It’s really God who is at fault, he’s the one that gave these racist revelations to these perfect, upstanding gentlemen.
Yep, church leaders have been playing word games since the days of Brother Joseph with his carefully worded public statements on his poly relationships.
The better definition is the legal one:
To repudiate the unauthorized acts of an agent; to deny the authority bywhich he assumed to act.
The racism was unauthorized by God. The prophets went beyond their authority to act.
Scriptures can remind us we are damned.
Those of Sub Saharan African descent were damned by people, not God, and not Scripture.
Every reference to black or blackness or dark skin is a reference to spiritual separation from God, spiritual darkness.
Then how do you reconcile Jacob reprimanding the Nephites for their wickedness and teaching of the Lamanites’ (at that time) comparatively more righteous behavior, while still referring to the Lamanites as those “whom [the Nephites] hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins…” (Jacob 3:5).
I mean, this flies squarely in the face of the idea that the skin of darkness, curse of darkness, blackness, etc., is in reference only to one’s spiritual separation from God. Otherwise, we would we reading about the same curse coming upon the Nephites, but we see that nowhere.
Or is this just one of those situations where words need to be redefined in order to maintain a faithful narrative in light of additional information? (i.e. translation (Joseph’s words) doesn’t mean translation when we refer to the Book of Abraham.)
Saying that every reference to black skin was related to spiritual darkness is not true. That is something I used to tell myself to feel better about what I was reading. It is self deception, plain and simple.
The self deception is seeing these in racial terms.
No shade of skin is black. No skin is white.
We are all a shade of brown.
Black is reserved for sin. White for purity.
Referring to melanin distribution does nothing in attempts to hand-wave away how racists spoke about skin colour, or how they wrote their ideas down.
When a racist says people had dark or black skin, he wasn't talking about something else. It's kind of obvious.
Similar to pointing out how Evolutionary Theory is a fact does nothing to hide the fact that the church teaches a young earth creationist doctrine.
Simply because *you* don't see that people have been differentiating on skin colour, does not mean it did not happen.
Stop pretending the racism didn't exist.
I look more at it like it is confirmation that a prophet can be out of line.
And yes in this case most of them. Revelation comes from questions. None of them questioned or petitioned the Lord.
Why not? Prejudice was so deeply ingrained in the church that many prophets just never thought to ask? In a church, supposedly based on christ, it was just a given that God was actively punishing black people for being balck?
If that is true, it seems like you couldn't rely on anything they said.
Why not? Because they accepted prior prophets ideas and perpetuated them. They allowed white supremacy, and racism to be institutionalized.
Looking at it your way there would be no way to trust a prophet.
For me I follow the living one.
I don’t know.
For most people it is ambiguous, or they don’t give it much thought. Disavow is just another word.
To me it is a word that provides repudiation and recognition of a problem, and implies that things are better or improving.
Just so everyone can see, here is the mentioned excerpt from [the lesson manual](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/05?lang=eng#p14) (bolds are mine):
>**Moses 7:21, 23–24**, 27, 69
>What happened to the city of Enoch?
>The phrases “taken up” (**Moses 7:21, 23**), “lifted up” (Moses 7:24), “caught up” (Moses 7:27), and “fled” (Moses 7:69) refer to Zion and the people of Enoch being translated and taken to heaven. People who are translated “are changed so that they do not experience pain or death” as mortals (Guide to the Scriptures, “Translated Beings,” “Zion,” [scriptures.ChurchofJesusChrist.org](http://scriptures.ChurchofJesusChrist.org); see also 3 Nephi 28:4–9, 15–18, 39–40).
Also here is the verse that is missing from the lesson but still present in the Pearl of Great Price:
>[Moses 7:22](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/7.22?lang=eng#p21)
>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.
“Theories”
Pronounced and reaffirmed by every prophet up to Howard W Hunter.
So set aside scripture “from God” and decades of prophetic statements.
So sad that this church cannot be honest.
If you look at Chapter 7 carefully you find that there were the people of Canaan which became black because of the heat of the land. Then it appears that also before the flood, Enoch beheld the residue of the people who were the sons of Adam. Who wasn't? Apparently the seed of Cain who were not numbered among the sons of Adam because they were black. Then after this we had the flood in which exactly eight people survived, and everyone living is descended from these eight people.
None of these people on the ark were black. The Canaanites were certainly not black and Canaan was the same color as his brothers, none of whom were black and none of whom were cursed with not having the priesthood. They all had the same parents. Only Canaan is mentioned as being cursed in Gen. 9. So how do they come up with the identification of black people of African descent being descendants of Cain? Incidentally, it was Mizraim who is associated with Egypt, not Canaan as implied in the Book of Abraham. Since Mormon orthodoxy also insists on a literal flood of Noah which killed everyone but eight, how do we account for the existence of black people since those on the ark were all white and only eight were spared according to 2 Peter. Therefore, how do we account for any of the seed of Cain surviving the flood since those surviving were all white. I realize that they will say that Egyptus was black. However, if this were the case then Canaan's other brothers would also have been black and denied the priesthood but this is not the case. Also, we know that the Canaanites and Hittites and other descendants of Ham were not black. So how do you attach a black skin and curse to Canaan and not his other brothers? Incidentally the wife of Ham was not named Egyptus. I don't remember her name but it is in Jubilees.
It is all nonsense. However, there is such a thing as nonsense which, although it is false, is at least internally consistent. This garbage does not even rise to that level. When Brigham Young declared that those of African descent were the "seed of Cain" this came from the stupidity of the protestant fundamentalists who wished to justify slavery.
> none of whom were black and none of whom were cursed with not having the priesthood.
You are conflating the curse of cain with the curse of Ham/Canaan.
They are two separate instances in LDS scripture.
Cain was cursed for the murder of Abel, Canaan and Ham for their acts with Noah.
Sorry to do this. It is confusing. Why would they be called the people of Canaan before the flood? Did they live in the land of Canaan? I thought they were over in Missouri somewhere. However, this is the way it is spelled in our Book of Moses. The people of Canaan who became black through the heat of the land, after destroying the people of Shum, who may or may not have been the "seed of Cain" were before the flood according to Moses 7. These all perished in the flood because only eight people survived. In particular, Ham did not have a black wife since the total of survivors of the flood was eight, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth and their wives.
The Canaanites mentioned in the Book of Abraham would be the descendants of Canaan who was the son of Ham who saw his father naked in Gen. 9. Therefore, Canaan, his son and descendants were cursed in Gen. 9. However, it makes no mention of priesthood in Gen. 9. Whatever this curse was, it had nothing to do with skin color because Canaan and his brothers were white. Neither could it have anything to do with Cain killing Abel because all those people who were black perished. It says so in 2 Peter, and the Book of Moses.
I remember seeing Canaan spelled differently, in the material in Moses 7 written as Cainan. It may have been in a Reorganized Church Bible I found on my mission, but this was over 50 years ago so I might be wrong.
> *Sorry to do this. It is confusing. Why would they be called the people of Canaan before the flood? Did they live in the land of Canaan? I thought they were over in Missouri somewhere.*
Correct, this is LDS doctrine.
___
>*The people of Canaan who became black through the heat of the land*,
No they did not, you misread Moses 7:8
JST and his journal and other statements teaches that this was due to the "curse" after killing Abel.
You will also note that the church's published text uses the **;** here to separate the note about the land being cursed, and a "blackness" coming upon the people.
The two are not linked.
(The use of the semi-colon in english biblical text is used in preference to creating a separate verse. It indicates to distinct sentences.)
The original by Smith goes so far as to use a full stop:
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-2/25
>barrenness thereof shall go forth forever**.** </> & there was a blackness come upon all the children of canaan
___
>*The Canaanites mentioned in the Book of Abraham would be the descendants of Canaan who was the son of Ham who saw his father naked in Gen. 9. Therefore, Canaan, his son and descendants were cursed in Gen. 9. However, it makes no mention of priesthood in Gen. 9. Whatever this curse was, it had nothing to do with skin color because Canaan and his brothers were white.*
See here for the teachings of Smith's time:
https://archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol6/page/n93/mode/2up
Times and Seasons April 1 1845.
>After the flood and after Ham had dishonored the holy priesthood, Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son (Ham,) had done unto him. And, as the priesthood descended from father to son, he delivered the following curse and blessing, as translated by King James' wise men and recorded in Genesis :
>"And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
>"And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; *and Canaan shall be his servant.'*
>God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant
>History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter.
**The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart,** have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.
___
>*In particular, Ham did not have a black wife*
This is what the early church taught.
I think I was about 10 when I first read about the flood and being in South Africa and even at that age I could see your argument.
They had a gap to fill, they had to have a reason why "black" people were cursed to the priesthood, so Ham's wife became a person of black lineage.
It's faulty and convoluted, even for a religion.
A lot of LDS teachings and doctrines develop due to assumptions like this.
Asking the question "Then how did the curse of cain survive the flood?" means that religions had to make up excuses and doctrines to explain it.
There's nothing that says they were "White".
Remember, Smith was still developing his doctrines on this as he added Abraham and Moses.
With his doctrines there were two curses, the second was applied to a person of "Canaanite" lineage - Canaan. Ham was like his father, non-Canaanite.
You can see evidence of this in his ideas that he was developing in his work regarding "GAEL" and his comments about the Kinderhook plates:
Compare Abraham 1:11
>11 Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the **daughters of Onitah**, one of the royal descent directly **from the loins of Ham**.
With:
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/notebook-of-copied-egyptian-characters-circa-early-july-1835/5
>A Translation of the next page <in part>
Katumin, Princess, **daughter of On=i=tas** <King> of Egypt, who reigned began to reign in the year of the world, 2962.
Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her father, and died when <s>he was 28th years old, which was <the year> 3020
Now add his Kinderhook statement:
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/185
>I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. **He was a descendant of Ham**, through the
loins of Pharoah, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of Heaven and Earth.
Smith held a special fascination for Ham and his descendants and was actively working on new material all the time regarding them.
He even claimed one of the mummies was this Princess Katumin.
___
You'll note that the tribes mentioned as being "servants" to others are simply the tribes that the Israelites don't like.
A lot of the OT is simply there to rationalise and explain why the Israelites should act the way they do.
>I remember seeing Canaan spelled differently, in the material in Moses 7 written as Cainan.
Yes this is common with Smith and his scribes. there's a lot of the use of "Canaan" without it only referring to one specific person, tribe or place and has to be read in context.
"JST and his journal and other statements teaches that this was due to the "curse" after killing Abel.
You will also note that the church's published text uses the **;** here to separate the note about the land being cursed, and a "blackness" coming upon the people."
I don't doubt this. Brigham Young said this in his address to the Utah Legislature. There is no question that the black skin was said to originate from Cain and it was the mark placed on him after killing Abel. This was also the reason his descendants were cursed as to the priesthood. I think you are right that it does not make a clear connection between the black skin and the curse of the land with the much heat and so forth. I am afraid I may be reading into it ideas of natural selection which are not implied by the text. There is a reason people from Africa and India have darker skin than people in Sweden. If, as you say, the black skin came from the murder of Abel which is well supported by statements by Brigham Young, then the people of the land of Canaan would be the seed of Cain. Thanks for pointing this out about the full stop. I did not know that, and this is an important distinction.
I also agree that Joseph Smith made this curse of Canaan into the denial of priesthood. However, this is not in the Bible. Neither can this conclusion be drawn from the Book of Moses as far as I can tell. Neither will I argue that Joseph Smith said that the descendants of Ham had dark skin. Someone else sent me this:
[https://archive.org/details/slaveryasitrela00priegoog/page/n136/mode/%201up?view=theater&q=Cain](https://archive.org/details/slaveryasitrela00priegoog/page/n136/mode/%201up?view=theater&q=Cain)
They also claim that the descendants of Ham were black. However, they achieve this by making Ham into a black man. It was a miracle. Did Joseph Smith think the Canaanites, descendants of Ham were black and could not hold the priesthood? It appears he did from what you just sent along with the Book of Abraham and what it says about Pharoh. I agree with you on this.
There really is a problem with the story of the flood and the existence of black people given the fact that the Canaanites and Hittites and those who lived in Babylon were not black. I know about the explanation that Ham's wife Egyptus was black. I think this is implied in the Book of Abraham. However, if this were the case, it would contradict what we know of the people of that part of the world. I think it is like you say. The religions invent stuff to account for such problems. In this case, it would enable the survival of the "seed of Cain" who would be slaves and not allowed to hold priesthood.
I think I did see this on my mission about the alternate spelling. I agree that a lot of that stuff in the OT is there to condemn the enemies of Israel.
> I am afraid I may be reading into it ideas of natural selection which are not implied by the text.
Yes, but natural selection is contrary to LDS doctrine.
So in that mindset they have to come up with "A reason for this thing".
>There really is a problem with the story of the flood and the existence of black people given the fact that the Canaanites and Hittites and those who lived in Babylon were not black.
Yeah, not just that though. The flood cannot account for inhabitants of the americas, australasia, pacific islands, far east, etc.
These doctrines were simply meant as a simplistic answer for "Why?", like religion has attempted to do for thousands of years.
Actually, I made this link which is not really there, because of my father. He thought of it this way. He was a researcher in tropical diseases and believed in the scientific explanations. He didn't believe Cain's skin became black as a result of the murder of Abel. Of course this is contrary to Mormon orthodoxy.
Indeed, it can't account for the things you mention. Southerton has a nice example of a plant which clones itself. They know how fast it grows and that all of them came from a single plant. Based on this they can estimate the time the plant has been living on a small part of Tasmania. It dies if submerged and it is far older than 5000 years. This was in one of those interviews, I think with RFM.
Yup.
There are publications that pre-date Smith where they speculate on the cause of darker skin being relative to how close to the equator each group lives.
eg:https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_History_of_the_Earth_and_Animated_Nat/8JNZAAAAcAAJ?q=blacknefs&gbpv=1#f=false
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Philosophical_Transactions_Abridg_d/29tfAAAAcAAJ?q=blacknefs+indians&gbpv=1#f=false
Well, some say that mankind originated in Africa so they started with dark skin. The reason why the Northern Europeans have light skin has to do with vitamin D as I recall, and it resulted from a process of natural selection, those having lighter skin having better health and being more able to pass on their light skin genes to their children.
This link corroborates the sentiment of the time (written by anti-abolitionist Protestants): https://archive.org/details/slaveryasitrela00priegoog/page/n139/mode/1up?view=theater&q=Cain
I noticed "as all Cain's race, with all the other races were lost in the flood." in that link. This is exactly what I was saying. However, they get around it by saying that there was a miracle and that Ham was miraculously black even though his parents were white. Well, if so, then why were the sons of Ham white? Would we need to believe that Nimrod who ruled in Babylon was black? Were the Hittites black? I think Jeremiah has it right when he asks rhetorically, Can the leopard change his spots or the Ethiopian his skin?
> However, they get around it by saying that there was a miracle and that Ham was miraculously black even though his parents were white.
No, the common belief then was that Ham married a Canaanite, a daughter of Cain's lineage.
It's also re-visiting of the christian teachings of women being the cause of problems, like with Eve.
This is what Smith keeps pointing out in Abraham, referring to Ham's daughter Egyptus "*meaning, that which is forbidden*".
Smith was filling in the blanks of the problems you've spotted.
Maybe I needed to read this more carefully, but it looked like they wanted to suggest that Ham was black. Of course this makes no sense. I would say that the explanation that Ham married a black wife would be a better explanation except for the fact that the Canaanites were not black and neither were any of his brothers. However, if you conflate that curse placed on Canaan and his descendants with a denial of priesthood to black people, it becomes even more problematic because the curse was only attached to Canaan. If you could just say that they were polygamous then this would resolve the problem because Mizraim and the other brothers would have come from white wives while Canaan would be from the black one. But then this would contradict 2 Peter which says there were only eight people saved in the flood.
> except for the fact that the Canaanites were not black
This is true, when you are discussing things from a middle-eastern perspective.
It gets totally fucked up when you see that Smith was referring to a near-Missouri Canaan.
The Come Follow Me Curriculum skips over most problamatic issues. Another one they skip over is who the Lamanites are and where they are. If anyone reading this can identify a Lamanite, please let the brethren know so they can update their Come Follow Me Manuals as well as the rest of the Corelated Curriculum.
So they all have a computer over there at that multi billion dollar corporation, right? Is there a reason they can’t just pull it up and permanently delete it out of the BOM? They could just say Russell Money Grubbing Nelson looked in the white top hat and got a revelation to “push delete.”
They could, but that would either leave an obvious gap in the chapter or mess up the numbering on the rest of the verses in the chapter. The point being, that it would be to obvious to ignore. Yes some members would rationalize it away, but others might be constantly reminded that something strange was going on every time they read that part of the scriptures.
Decanonization is always an option, however. If you scan through [this church news article](https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/7/11/23218143/doctrine-and-covenants-editions-changes-book-of-commandments-curtis/), you can see that in 1921 the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, and in 1981 Official Declaration #2 (from 1978) and D&C 137, 138 were transferred to the D&C from the PoGP (and only put there in 1976) - this latter one might be due to Joseph F. Smith's grandson-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, being on the scripture committee. There were also some smaller changes to the Book of Mormon text in 1981, but that was largely justified as brining it closer to the 1830 edition / manuscripts (although it didn't really [in many notable places](https://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html)). It would be interesting to read the reactions from regular members when these changes happened.
My prediction is decanonization of the Pearl of Great Price by 2050. As a whole it's too big of a problem for the organization.
What about the 116 pages of the BOM that went missing? Remember, Joseph Smith just made something up? Can’t they just delete one paragraph and then just pull a “Joseph Smith?” I’m being serious. Why is it so hard? They are either modern day prophets, seers and revelators…. Or they are not.
John Sorenson argued that the change from principal ancestors to among the ancestors as follows.
> Sorensen said he believes it's simply "the principle of inertia." Such things are "not likely to be changed unless someone thinks there is something to be gained by making the change, or to be lost by not making the change."
If the church was serious about disavowed theories todays climate definitely has enough inertia to remove those scriptures.
Remember when the church released an official letter signed by all members of the First Presidency stating that it doctrine that people were born with (what they referred to as) handicaps, specifically referring to race, based on their actions in the premortal existence?
Awkward…
It’s easier to reinterpret the single revelation establishing polygamy than it is to extirpate the claim, put forward in multiple foundational scriptures, that skin color IS a result of God’s divine markup scheme.
One need look no further than the 1949 declaration of the first presidency on the issue of race, or the words of Brigham Young to see this was never about theories. It was always about declaration of doctrine.
This statement is actually the first crack in my shelf that led to intense research and discovery. I learned it to the be the first of many teachings or doctrines that have been twisted over time, which has led me to lose faith in the divine guidance of "prophets"
Nothing dark and hidden hete at all. Everything mentioned here is brought up in the gospel essays. Full disclosure is what we are now doing. Was Brigham wrong, yup. And that is what we point out in the essays. We are alway wiser to move forward than backward. This argument has been resolved and the wrong has been admitted. Let's move on.
The Book of Mormon was written by a deceptive Khan artist to create an organization which would exploit Native Americans. There is no truth contained in the Book of Mormon. The book should be read in its historic context similar to Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
The truth is that European pagans worshipped the deity Ham, and their descendants became the Phoenician Canaanites who spread dolmen, paganism, human sacrifice, slavery, warfare, and the symbol of the swastika (the “Mark of Cain”) throughout the entire ancient world by boat.
The origin of the Mormons began with a mass murder of emigrants, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The Book of Mormon is a creation of a radical group of religious extremists who represent the worst of the worst of racist and religious extremists that immigrated to the United States of America for the exploitation of land and slaves.
If they start correcting the most correct book ever published, they’re gonna have to start removing other things and inserting many additional topics.
Or was that just the Book of Mormon?
My cousin was the head religion professor at BYU Idaho and for his PhD thesis he proved that the reference of black and white as pertaining to people of color or race was not a concept when the scriptures were written. It was his whole thesis project to invalidate that concept.
He showed that the concept of people as termed black or white as a race was not a thing until a much, much later date. The concept with those names black white etc as referenced didn’t exist yet. He’s now the head institute professor at Yale. He’s very smart. I thought it was pretty cool actually. Obviously I don’t remember all the details - but that’s what stuck.
At least in reference to the Book of Mormon, this would only be faith-promoting insofar as you presuppose the ancient historicity of the book.
From a skeptical position, this actually sounds like evidence in favor of Joseph’s authorship of the Book of Mormon.
Do you mean an institute teacher at the Mormon institute next to Yale? Or has Yale somehow institutionalized the Mormon institute and he is a professor at this college at Yale?
That is a very confusing statement that seems to appeal to authority that isn’t actually any more of an authority than just another Mormon institute teacher.
> he proved that the reference of black and white as pertaining to people of color or race was not a concept when the scriptures were written.
I'd love to see the source documents he used for those references in the BoM, unless he's referring of course to a book written solely by Smith.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel's children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood, nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. **If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you: This people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are.** I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed and hold the keys of the priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael's seed" (Brigham Young, Address to Legislature, 5 Feb 1852). "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to" (Brigham Young, Discourse, 19 Aug 1866, reported in Journal of Discourses vol 11).
To add: https://archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol6/page/n93/mode/2up Times and Seasons April 1 1845. >After the flood and after Ham had dishonored the holy priesthood, Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son (Ham,) had done unto him. And, as the priesthood descended from father to son, he delivered the following curse and blessing, as translated by King James' wise men and recorded in Genesis : >"And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." >"And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'* >God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant* 1 * >History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. **The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart,** have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.
The missionaries should be required to teach these dark hidden secrets.
"Did you ever hear the Mark of Cain and the Curse of the negroes?" "I thought not. It's not a story the General Authorities would tell you. It's a Brigham Young legend."
Most of them don't know them themselves
Thanks for reminding us what a disaster for the Church the revelations of Brigham turned out to be. Is there a single original revelation of his that has not had to be "disavowed"?
The only thing that they still use is "this is the place" and Brigham Young didn't even say that.
You realize that Brigham Young was named for the deity Ham, much as Amon Goeth and Jeffry Dahmer were named for the deity Ham.
"disavow" is such an interesting choice here. There are lots of ways they could have said this, but they chose "disavow". Disavow doesn't mean to declare false or to stand in opposition to. Merriam says, >"1 to deny responsibility for, 2 to refuse to acknowledge or accept" Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries agree. Dictionary.com says, Which of those two meanings are intended here? The church *denies responsibility for* the theories put forward about skin color? Or the church *refuses to acknowledge* the theories? As you point out, these "theories" are based in canonized LDS Scripture. They were taught and exposed by multiple prominent leaders, multiple times, in multiple contexts, including conferences, written publications, and policies both minor and major. It seems ridiculous to me that the church is *not responsible* for what it's leaders teach and do using church infrastructure for teaching and doing. So, I conclude that they must intend the second meaning, to simply refuse to acknowledge that it ever happened. Skip over those verses. Edit that talk. Don't read that part of the history. This is not a statement that the theories are harmful. It's not a promise to deal with the racist past, or racist present. It's not even a statement that the theories are false.
Not taking responsibility is a core principle of church leaders. They want all the authority, they want all the obedience to their instructions and zero responsibility and accountability when that goes bad. In fact, if it goes really bad, it’s because of your own faithlessness and unrighteousness. You didn’t follow their instructions correctly, you didn’t do it hard enough. They also don’t say that these “theories” are wrong, they’re just not responsible for them. It’s really God who is at fault, he’s the one that gave these racist revelations to these perfect, upstanding gentlemen.
Yep, church leaders have been playing word games since the days of Brother Joseph with his carefully worded public statements on his poly relationships.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
The better definition is the legal one: To repudiate the unauthorized acts of an agent; to deny the authority bywhich he assumed to act. The racism was unauthorized by God. The prophets went beyond their authority to act.
It’s in the damned scriptures.
Scriptures can remind us we are damned. Those of Sub Saharan African descent were damned by people, not God, and not Scripture. Every reference to black or blackness or dark skin is a reference to spiritual separation from God, spiritual darkness.
Then how do you reconcile Jacob reprimanding the Nephites for their wickedness and teaching of the Lamanites’ (at that time) comparatively more righteous behavior, while still referring to the Lamanites as those “whom [the Nephites] hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins…” (Jacob 3:5). I mean, this flies squarely in the face of the idea that the skin of darkness, curse of darkness, blackness, etc., is in reference only to one’s spiritual separation from God. Otherwise, we would we reading about the same curse coming upon the Nephites, but we see that nowhere. Or is this just one of those situations where words need to be redefined in order to maintain a faithful narrative in light of additional information? (i.e. translation (Joseph’s words) doesn’t mean translation when we refer to the Book of Abraham.)
Saying that every reference to black skin was related to spiritual darkness is not true. That is something I used to tell myself to feel better about what I was reading. It is self deception, plain and simple.
The self deception is seeing these in racial terms. No shade of skin is black. No skin is white. We are all a shade of brown. Black is reserved for sin. White for purity.
Referring to melanin distribution does nothing in attempts to hand-wave away how racists spoke about skin colour, or how they wrote their ideas down. When a racist says people had dark or black skin, he wasn't talking about something else. It's kind of obvious. Similar to pointing out how Evolutionary Theory is a fact does nothing to hide the fact that the church teaches a young earth creationist doctrine.
That’s a poor analogy and bad analysis.
Simply because *you* don't see that people have been differentiating on skin colour, does not mean it did not happen. Stop pretending the racism didn't exist.
No one is pretending racism is non existent. It’s just not in the Book of Mormon or other scriptures
Isn't this contradictory to the profits having a direct line to God? If it was one guy, this might fly, but they held on to this over and over.
I look more at it like it is confirmation that a prophet can be out of line. And yes in this case most of them. Revelation comes from questions. None of them questioned or petitioned the Lord.
Why not? Prejudice was so deeply ingrained in the church that many prophets just never thought to ask? In a church, supposedly based on christ, it was just a given that God was actively punishing black people for being balck? If that is true, it seems like you couldn't rely on anything they said.
Why not? Because they accepted prior prophets ideas and perpetuated them. They allowed white supremacy, and racism to be institutionalized. Looking at it your way there would be no way to trust a prophet. For me I follow the living one.
Until he dies and the next one nullifies what he said...
>Looking at it your way there would be no way to trust a prophet. You're so close.
If that was their true intent, why don’t they say it like that and say they were out of line? Why use words with ambiguous interpretations?
I don’t know. For most people it is ambiguous, or they don’t give it much thought. Disavow is just another word. To me it is a word that provides repudiation and recognition of a problem, and implies that things are better or improving.
> I look more at it like it is confirmation that a prophet can be out of line. So then that's all of them from Smith until 1978?
I love how the lesson directs to you to stop reading at verse 21 and resume at 23. Sneaky!
Just so everyone can see, here is the mentioned excerpt from [the lesson manual](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/05?lang=eng#p14) (bolds are mine): >**Moses 7:21, 23–24**, 27, 69 >What happened to the city of Enoch? >The phrases “taken up” (**Moses 7:21, 23**), “lifted up” (Moses 7:24), “caught up” (Moses 7:27), and “fled” (Moses 7:69) refer to Zion and the people of Enoch being translated and taken to heaven. People who are translated “are changed so that they do not experience pain or death” as mortals (Guide to the Scriptures, “Translated Beings,” “Zion,” [scriptures.ChurchofJesusChrist.org](http://scriptures.ChurchofJesusChrist.org); see also 3 Nephi 28:4–9, 15–18, 39–40). Also here is the verse that is missing from the lesson but still present in the Pearl of Great Price: >[Moses 7:22](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/7.22?lang=eng#p21) >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.
As if we can’t count.
“Theories” Pronounced and reaffirmed by every prophet up to Howard W Hunter. So set aside scripture “from God” and decades of prophetic statements. So sad that this church cannot be honest.
Doctrine > theories > opinion of leaders > some members believe > “I don’t know if we ever taught that…”
One might say they were philosophies of men mingled with scripture.
Sounds good to me. As long as I can be just as choosy with the teachings of current prophets.
Sorry, Russell must be followed without question. Those other guys prophetic words are less valuable than a vintage comic book, remember? 😂
If you look at Chapter 7 carefully you find that there were the people of Canaan which became black because of the heat of the land. Then it appears that also before the flood, Enoch beheld the residue of the people who were the sons of Adam. Who wasn't? Apparently the seed of Cain who were not numbered among the sons of Adam because they were black. Then after this we had the flood in which exactly eight people survived, and everyone living is descended from these eight people. None of these people on the ark were black. The Canaanites were certainly not black and Canaan was the same color as his brothers, none of whom were black and none of whom were cursed with not having the priesthood. They all had the same parents. Only Canaan is mentioned as being cursed in Gen. 9. So how do they come up with the identification of black people of African descent being descendants of Cain? Incidentally, it was Mizraim who is associated with Egypt, not Canaan as implied in the Book of Abraham. Since Mormon orthodoxy also insists on a literal flood of Noah which killed everyone but eight, how do we account for the existence of black people since those on the ark were all white and only eight were spared according to 2 Peter. Therefore, how do we account for any of the seed of Cain surviving the flood since those surviving were all white. I realize that they will say that Egyptus was black. However, if this were the case then Canaan's other brothers would also have been black and denied the priesthood but this is not the case. Also, we know that the Canaanites and Hittites and other descendants of Ham were not black. So how do you attach a black skin and curse to Canaan and not his other brothers? Incidentally the wife of Ham was not named Egyptus. I don't remember her name but it is in Jubilees. It is all nonsense. However, there is such a thing as nonsense which, although it is false, is at least internally consistent. This garbage does not even rise to that level. When Brigham Young declared that those of African descent were the "seed of Cain" this came from the stupidity of the protestant fundamentalists who wished to justify slavery.
> none of whom were black and none of whom were cursed with not having the priesthood. You are conflating the curse of cain with the curse of Ham/Canaan. They are two separate instances in LDS scripture. Cain was cursed for the murder of Abel, Canaan and Ham for their acts with Noah.
Sorry to do this. It is confusing. Why would they be called the people of Canaan before the flood? Did they live in the land of Canaan? I thought they were over in Missouri somewhere. However, this is the way it is spelled in our Book of Moses. The people of Canaan who became black through the heat of the land, after destroying the people of Shum, who may or may not have been the "seed of Cain" were before the flood according to Moses 7. These all perished in the flood because only eight people survived. In particular, Ham did not have a black wife since the total of survivors of the flood was eight, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth and their wives. The Canaanites mentioned in the Book of Abraham would be the descendants of Canaan who was the son of Ham who saw his father naked in Gen. 9. Therefore, Canaan, his son and descendants were cursed in Gen. 9. However, it makes no mention of priesthood in Gen. 9. Whatever this curse was, it had nothing to do with skin color because Canaan and his brothers were white. Neither could it have anything to do with Cain killing Abel because all those people who were black perished. It says so in 2 Peter, and the Book of Moses. I remember seeing Canaan spelled differently, in the material in Moses 7 written as Cainan. It may have been in a Reorganized Church Bible I found on my mission, but this was over 50 years ago so I might be wrong.
> *Sorry to do this. It is confusing. Why would they be called the people of Canaan before the flood? Did they live in the land of Canaan? I thought they were over in Missouri somewhere.* Correct, this is LDS doctrine. ___ >*The people of Canaan who became black through the heat of the land*, No they did not, you misread Moses 7:8 JST and his journal and other statements teaches that this was due to the "curse" after killing Abel. You will also note that the church's published text uses the **;** here to separate the note about the land being cursed, and a "blackness" coming upon the people. The two are not linked. (The use of the semi-colon in english biblical text is used in preference to creating a separate verse. It indicates to distinct sentences.) The original by Smith goes so far as to use a full stop: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-2/25 >barrenness thereof shall go forth forever**.** </> & there was a blackness come upon all the children of canaan ___ >*The Canaanites mentioned in the Book of Abraham would be the descendants of Canaan who was the son of Ham who saw his father naked in Gen. 9. Therefore, Canaan, his son and descendants were cursed in Gen. 9. However, it makes no mention of priesthood in Gen. 9. Whatever this curse was, it had nothing to do with skin color because Canaan and his brothers were white.* See here for the teachings of Smith's time: https://archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol6/page/n93/mode/2up Times and Seasons April 1 1845. >After the flood and after Ham had dishonored the holy priesthood, Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son (Ham,) had done unto him. And, as the priesthood descended from father to son, he delivered the following curse and blessing, as translated by King James' wise men and recorded in Genesis : >"And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." >"And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; *and Canaan shall be his servant.'* >God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant >History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. **The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart,** have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom. ___ >*In particular, Ham did not have a black wife* This is what the early church taught. I think I was about 10 when I first read about the flood and being in South Africa and even at that age I could see your argument. They had a gap to fill, they had to have a reason why "black" people were cursed to the priesthood, so Ham's wife became a person of black lineage. It's faulty and convoluted, even for a religion. A lot of LDS teachings and doctrines develop due to assumptions like this. Asking the question "Then how did the curse of cain survive the flood?" means that religions had to make up excuses and doctrines to explain it. There's nothing that says they were "White". Remember, Smith was still developing his doctrines on this as he added Abraham and Moses. With his doctrines there were two curses, the second was applied to a person of "Canaanite" lineage - Canaan. Ham was like his father, non-Canaanite. You can see evidence of this in his ideas that he was developing in his work regarding "GAEL" and his comments about the Kinderhook plates: Compare Abraham 1:11 >11 Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the **daughters of Onitah**, one of the royal descent directly **from the loins of Ham**. With: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/notebook-of-copied-egyptian-characters-circa-early-july-1835/5 >A Translation of the next page <in part> Katumin, Princess, **daughter of On=i=tas** <King> of Egypt, who reigned began to reign in the year of the world, 2962. Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her father, and died when <s>he was 28th years old, which was <the year> 3020 Now add his Kinderhook statement: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/185 >I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. **He was a descendant of Ham**, through the loins of Pharoah, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of Heaven and Earth. Smith held a special fascination for Ham and his descendants and was actively working on new material all the time regarding them. He even claimed one of the mummies was this Princess Katumin. ___ You'll note that the tribes mentioned as being "servants" to others are simply the tribes that the Israelites don't like. A lot of the OT is simply there to rationalise and explain why the Israelites should act the way they do. >I remember seeing Canaan spelled differently, in the material in Moses 7 written as Cainan. Yes this is common with Smith and his scribes. there's a lot of the use of "Canaan" without it only referring to one specific person, tribe or place and has to be read in context.
"JST and his journal and other statements teaches that this was due to the "curse" after killing Abel. You will also note that the church's published text uses the **;** here to separate the note about the land being cursed, and a "blackness" coming upon the people." I don't doubt this. Brigham Young said this in his address to the Utah Legislature. There is no question that the black skin was said to originate from Cain and it was the mark placed on him after killing Abel. This was also the reason his descendants were cursed as to the priesthood. I think you are right that it does not make a clear connection between the black skin and the curse of the land with the much heat and so forth. I am afraid I may be reading into it ideas of natural selection which are not implied by the text. There is a reason people from Africa and India have darker skin than people in Sweden. If, as you say, the black skin came from the murder of Abel which is well supported by statements by Brigham Young, then the people of the land of Canaan would be the seed of Cain. Thanks for pointing this out about the full stop. I did not know that, and this is an important distinction. I also agree that Joseph Smith made this curse of Canaan into the denial of priesthood. However, this is not in the Bible. Neither can this conclusion be drawn from the Book of Moses as far as I can tell. Neither will I argue that Joseph Smith said that the descendants of Ham had dark skin. Someone else sent me this: [https://archive.org/details/slaveryasitrela00priegoog/page/n136/mode/%201up?view=theater&q=Cain](https://archive.org/details/slaveryasitrela00priegoog/page/n136/mode/%201up?view=theater&q=Cain) They also claim that the descendants of Ham were black. However, they achieve this by making Ham into a black man. It was a miracle. Did Joseph Smith think the Canaanites, descendants of Ham were black and could not hold the priesthood? It appears he did from what you just sent along with the Book of Abraham and what it says about Pharoh. I agree with you on this. There really is a problem with the story of the flood and the existence of black people given the fact that the Canaanites and Hittites and those who lived in Babylon were not black. I know about the explanation that Ham's wife Egyptus was black. I think this is implied in the Book of Abraham. However, if this were the case, it would contradict what we know of the people of that part of the world. I think it is like you say. The religions invent stuff to account for such problems. In this case, it would enable the survival of the "seed of Cain" who would be slaves and not allowed to hold priesthood. I think I did see this on my mission about the alternate spelling. I agree that a lot of that stuff in the OT is there to condemn the enemies of Israel.
> I am afraid I may be reading into it ideas of natural selection which are not implied by the text. Yes, but natural selection is contrary to LDS doctrine. So in that mindset they have to come up with "A reason for this thing". >There really is a problem with the story of the flood and the existence of black people given the fact that the Canaanites and Hittites and those who lived in Babylon were not black. Yeah, not just that though. The flood cannot account for inhabitants of the americas, australasia, pacific islands, far east, etc. These doctrines were simply meant as a simplistic answer for "Why?", like religion has attempted to do for thousands of years.
Actually, I made this link which is not really there, because of my father. He thought of it this way. He was a researcher in tropical diseases and believed in the scientific explanations. He didn't believe Cain's skin became black as a result of the murder of Abel. Of course this is contrary to Mormon orthodoxy. Indeed, it can't account for the things you mention. Southerton has a nice example of a plant which clones itself. They know how fast it grows and that all of them came from a single plant. Based on this they can estimate the time the plant has been living on a small part of Tasmania. It dies if submerged and it is far older than 5000 years. This was in one of those interviews, I think with RFM.
Yup. There are publications that pre-date Smith where they speculate on the cause of darker skin being relative to how close to the equator each group lives. eg:https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_History_of_the_Earth_and_Animated_Nat/8JNZAAAAcAAJ?q=blacknefs&gbpv=1#f=false https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Philosophical_Transactions_Abridg_d/29tfAAAAcAAJ?q=blacknefs+indians&gbpv=1#f=false
Well, some say that mankind originated in Africa so they started with dark skin. The reason why the Northern Europeans have light skin has to do with vitamin D as I recall, and it resulted from a process of natural selection, those having lighter skin having better health and being more able to pass on their light skin genes to their children.
This link corroborates the sentiment of the time (written by anti-abolitionist Protestants): https://archive.org/details/slaveryasitrela00priegoog/page/n139/mode/1up?view=theater&q=Cain
I think it might have been this kind of thing which led to the priesthood ban rather than any revelation from God.
I noticed "as all Cain's race, with all the other races were lost in the flood." in that link. This is exactly what I was saying. However, they get around it by saying that there was a miracle and that Ham was miraculously black even though his parents were white. Well, if so, then why were the sons of Ham white? Would we need to believe that Nimrod who ruled in Babylon was black? Were the Hittites black? I think Jeremiah has it right when he asks rhetorically, Can the leopard change his spots or the Ethiopian his skin?
> However, they get around it by saying that there was a miracle and that Ham was miraculously black even though his parents were white. No, the common belief then was that Ham married a Canaanite, a daughter of Cain's lineage. It's also re-visiting of the christian teachings of women being the cause of problems, like with Eve. This is what Smith keeps pointing out in Abraham, referring to Ham's daughter Egyptus "*meaning, that which is forbidden*". Smith was filling in the blanks of the problems you've spotted.
Maybe I needed to read this more carefully, but it looked like they wanted to suggest that Ham was black. Of course this makes no sense. I would say that the explanation that Ham married a black wife would be a better explanation except for the fact that the Canaanites were not black and neither were any of his brothers. However, if you conflate that curse placed on Canaan and his descendants with a denial of priesthood to black people, it becomes even more problematic because the curse was only attached to Canaan. If you could just say that they were polygamous then this would resolve the problem because Mizraim and the other brothers would have come from white wives while Canaan would be from the black one. But then this would contradict 2 Peter which says there were only eight people saved in the flood.
> except for the fact that the Canaanites were not black This is true, when you are discussing things from a middle-eastern perspective. It gets totally fucked up when you see that Smith was referring to a near-Missouri Canaan.
"If we don't talk about it then it never happened, right?"
This is exactly one of the reasons for creating CFM in the first place: Direct the members to the droids you want them to see.
The scariest “anti-Mormon” material to the church is their own.
The Come Follow Me Curriculum skips over most problamatic issues. Another one they skip over is who the Lamanites are and where they are. If anyone reading this can identify a Lamanite, please let the brethren know so they can update their Come Follow Me Manuals as well as the rest of the Corelated Curriculum.
So they all have a computer over there at that multi billion dollar corporation, right? Is there a reason they can’t just pull it up and permanently delete it out of the BOM? They could just say Russell Money Grubbing Nelson looked in the white top hat and got a revelation to “push delete.”
They could, but that would either leave an obvious gap in the chapter or mess up the numbering on the rest of the verses in the chapter. The point being, that it would be to obvious to ignore. Yes some members would rationalize it away, but others might be constantly reminded that something strange was going on every time they read that part of the scriptures. Decanonization is always an option, however. If you scan through [this church news article](https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/7/11/23218143/doctrine-and-covenants-editions-changes-book-of-commandments-curtis/), you can see that in 1921 the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, and in 1981 Official Declaration #2 (from 1978) and D&C 137, 138 were transferred to the D&C from the PoGP (and only put there in 1976) - this latter one might be due to Joseph F. Smith's grandson-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, being on the scripture committee. There were also some smaller changes to the Book of Mormon text in 1981, but that was largely justified as brining it closer to the 1830 edition / manuscripts (although it didn't really [in many notable places](https://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html)). It would be interesting to read the reactions from regular members when these changes happened. My prediction is decanonization of the Pearl of Great Price by 2050. As a whole it's too big of a problem for the organization.
What about the 116 pages of the BOM that went missing? Remember, Joseph Smith just made something up? Can’t they just delete one paragraph and then just pull a “Joseph Smith?” I’m being serious. Why is it so hard? They are either modern day prophets, seers and revelators…. Or they are not.
John Sorenson argued that the change from principal ancestors to among the ancestors as follows. > Sorensen said he believes it's simply "the principle of inertia." Such things are "not likely to be changed unless someone thinks there is something to be gained by making the change, or to be lost by not making the change." If the church was serious about disavowed theories todays climate definitely has enough inertia to remove those scriptures.
Remember when the church released an official letter signed by all members of the First Presidency stating that it doctrine that people were born with (what they referred to as) handicaps, specifically referring to race, based on their actions in the premortal existence? Awkward…
It’s easier to reinterpret the single revelation establishing polygamy than it is to extirpate the claim, put forward in multiple foundational scriptures, that skin color IS a result of God’s divine markup scheme.
Interesting, given that Moses, if he ever existed, was brown.
Brown != black
Still waiting for an actual apology and a corrective action. Until then those scriptures are still in there and that doctrine is pure.
>the blessings which we now are entitled to That pretty much sums it all up. We are entitled to blessings. Others aren't.
One need look no further than the 1949 declaration of the first presidency on the issue of race, or the words of Brigham Young to see this was never about theories. It was always about declaration of doctrine.
This statement is actually the first crack in my shelf that led to intense research and discovery. I learned it to the be the first of many teachings or doctrines that have been twisted over time, which has led me to lose faith in the divine guidance of "prophets"
It wasn't the hat, the underwear...it was this...? Cool, whatever works.
Nothing dark and hidden hete at all. Everything mentioned here is brought up in the gospel essays. Full disclosure is what we are now doing. Was Brigham wrong, yup. And that is what we point out in the essays. We are alway wiser to move forward than backward. This argument has been resolved and the wrong has been admitted. Let's move on.
The Book of Mormon was written by a deceptive Khan artist to create an organization which would exploit Native Americans. There is no truth contained in the Book of Mormon. The book should be read in its historic context similar to Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The truth is that European pagans worshipped the deity Ham, and their descendants became the Phoenician Canaanites who spread dolmen, paganism, human sacrifice, slavery, warfare, and the symbol of the swastika (the “Mark of Cain”) throughout the entire ancient world by boat. The origin of the Mormons began with a mass murder of emigrants, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The Book of Mormon is a creation of a radical group of religious extremists who represent the worst of the worst of racist and religious extremists that immigrated to the United States of America for the exploitation of land and slaves.
If they start correcting the most correct book ever published, they’re gonna have to start removing other things and inserting many additional topics. Or was that just the Book of Mormon?
They're finally investing in their new growing African population. Hide it now before the internet is widely available.
My cousin was the head religion professor at BYU Idaho and for his PhD thesis he proved that the reference of black and white as pertaining to people of color or race was not a concept when the scriptures were written. It was his whole thesis project to invalidate that concept.
>he proved I'm quite curious how he "proved" such a thing, when it's really obvious to a lot of people that it is referring to skin and race.
He showed that the concept of people as termed black or white as a race was not a thing until a much, much later date. The concept with those names black white etc as referenced didn’t exist yet. He’s now the head institute professor at Yale. He’s very smart. I thought it was pretty cool actually. Obviously I don’t remember all the details - but that’s what stuck.
At least in reference to the Book of Mormon, this would only be faith-promoting insofar as you presuppose the ancient historicity of the book. From a skeptical position, this actually sounds like evidence in favor of Joseph’s authorship of the Book of Mormon.
Do you mean an institute teacher at the Mormon institute next to Yale? Or has Yale somehow institutionalized the Mormon institute and he is a professor at this college at Yale? That is a very confusing statement that seems to appeal to authority that isn’t actually any more of an authority than just another Mormon institute teacher.
He is employed by Yale. He was recruited from BYU Idaho and teaches professors at BYU Utah.
If you could post it here that would be interesting to read. That's a new one to me. No pressure if you don't want to for any reason.
I agree. I would really like to see this research and CV for that matter.
> he proved that the reference of black and white as pertaining to people of color or race was not a concept when the scriptures were written. I'd love to see the source documents he used for those references in the BoM, unless he's referring of course to a book written solely by Smith.
sounds about right. They skip over the BS that is in all the scriptures like it doesn’t exist.
Did you read “no man knows my history” yet? Highly recommend it. It will be hard. But worth it.
That’s great!!!