A
Ahimsa
Guest
Actually, you’re reading into the BoA what is not there. But, you’re in good company, because the LDS and other Christians read into Noah’s curse what is not there.
- Status
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Actually, you’re reading into the BoA what is not there. But, you’re in good company, because the LDS and other Christians read into Noah’s curse what is not there.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
true, but anyone intelligent can see the double speak there. Reading their quotes, one can see clearly it was pure racism
A
Ahimsa
Guest
So, Baptists aren’t Christian?
Stephen168
New member
Of course they are. Why would you ask?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Since Baptists are Christians, and Christians wrote the NT, then can you say that Baptists wrote the NT?
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
:banghead:Baptists are Christians, however the Christians that wrote the New Testament were not Baptists, since the Baptist church(es) did not exist yet.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Good. Likewise, LDS did not exist when the BoM and BoA were written. Thus, the LDS did not write its scriptural texts; which means, of course, that the LDS’ interpretation of those texts are not necessarily the interpretations of the authors of those texts. And what that implies is that the LDS interpretation of, say, the Cain/Ham curse, need not be fully descriptive of what the authors meant. Thus, the African priesthood ban falls into the category of “interpretation of scriptural text not explicitly written by the authors of that text”.
Baptists are Christians, however the Christians that wrote the New Testament were not Baptists, since the Baptist church(es) did not exist yet.
A
aquabatix
Guest
Well you have a problem there. The BoA was actually an Egytian funeral text, so JS was the actual author of the “Book of Ambraham”. And for the BoM, until some golden plates are discovered, JS and Cowdry and Spalding are the authors there too. So the author of both texts passed the interpretations on PERSONALLY to BY who in turn instituted the priesthood ban. So the author’s intent was well known.
Stephen168
New member
My brothers and I are men. Men wrote the United States Constitution, so you could say we wrote the United States Constitution. Except the Constitution is an 18th century document and my brothers and I didn’t come along until the 20th century. The New Testament are first century documents and Baptists didn’t come along until the 16th century. Mormon scripture are 19th century documents and so is the Mormon Church.
The Mormon leaders wrote the same documents there were to interpret within a very short period of time. Again, to suggest they would misinterpret their our scripture is silly.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
That’s funny: to ordain Africans, and to ban them. Do you have any documentation that shows Smith passed the ban (and other interpretative methodologies) to Young?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Of course, you’re assuming you know who wrote these texts. Even if we assume Smith et al. wrote them, Africans were ordained during Smith’s reign, so to say that Smith et al. interpreted the scriptures in terms of an APB lacks sufficient evidence and support.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Unfortunately, the BOM has been shown to be the product of Joseph Smith’s era, containing many elements of his own experience. It’s also shown that the different ‘authors’ used the same structural elements over and over again, elements that we also see in Smith’s own writing. He gave himself away as he wrote.
We find the BOM full of New Testament phrases, too, making it obvious that the ‘authors’ were familiar with a regional-specific dialect version of a book not yet written by people not yet born some 5,000 miles away that wouldn’t see print until some 2,200 years in the future. That’s truly miraculous, indeed!
And it’s hard to believe that anyone actually still takes the BOA seriously, since it’s been thoroughly undermined and discredited. The fact that the church owns the pieces of papyrus that Smith claims to have ‘translated’ clearly demonstrates that Smith was unable to read ancient languages. Take a look at how many times Hugh Nibley changed his position about the BOA, just to avoid calling it the fraud that it is.
Your claims are refuted by the feel-good book of 1967, The Church and the Negro, which clearly establishes the church’s position on blacks and the priesthood.
And no, Mormons are Smithians, perhaps, but not Christians no matter how many times you jump up and down, screaming that it’s a fact.
Sorry.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The BoM’s credibility or lack thereof, is not the issue here. The issue is whether the core scriptural texts of the LDS explicitly supports an African priesthood ban. I have yet to see evidence to support that contention. Whether the BoM is of God, is another issue.
The LDS clearly taught the African priesthood ban. No one is doubting that. The issue is whether that ban is explicitly justified via core LDS scriptural texts, and the answer to that, it seems, is no. I’m still waiting for someone to show me wrong, though.
S
soren1
Guest
Even if we grant that deriving the priesthood ban from the Book of Abraham involves a potentially questionable interpretive act, the fact remains that the leaders of the LDS Church have, in their capacity as prophets, seers, and revelators, defined the priesthood ban as a matter of revelation. Moreover, they repudiated the common claim of modern Mormons that the ban was not of doctrinal force. A statement promulgated by the First Presidency in 1949 is inescapably clear:
The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.
Given the high doctrinal authority of First Presidency Statements, this text alone is enough evidence to consolidate the case. While later statements in the fifties and sixties backpedaled by saying that the reason for the priesthood ban was unknown, they did not specify just what is unknown about it. Did LDS leaders not know if the blacks were inferior in the preexistence, or do they not know why having dark skin and no priesthood is a just requital for their lack of valor? We are not told.
But what if we granted the opposite, in spite of all evidence? What if we rolled over and said, “Ok, we will extend to Mormonism the greatest benefit of the doubt ever extended to anyone, ever, and allow that Mormon theology is not doctrinally committed to the priesthood ban as historically articulated by its leaders. Let us forget history and accept the claims of the many Mormons who say that the ban didn’t come from revelation but was a mistaken interpretation by the human leaders of the Church.” If we grant that, does it help the case for Mormonism in any way? In fact, the priesthood ban, if it not revealed, is more directly fatal to Mormonism that if it is. For its existence undermines Apostolic succession in Mormon Church. Here is why:
If there ever was a priesthood ban, it was abolished by Jesus in 33 a.d., when he said to his newly minted Apostles: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt 28:19-20) A key term in this statement is the “nations.” The Greek term, ethnē, does not mean nations just in the sense of political bodies, as we think of it, but refers instead to “peoples.” It indicates any group of people joined by a common bond such as shared language, religion, or race. It could actually be translated accurately, if inelegantly, as “make disciples of all ethnic groups.” This declaration by Jesus proclaims an end to Jewish ethnocentricity and an extension to all ethnic groups of full equality under the gospel, which becomes a central theme in Paul’s epistles. Not only then is the abolition of racial barriers part of the gospel, it is part of the very commission that constitutes the Twelve as Apostles.
If, for manmade reasons, the Apostles of the LDS Church denied gospel equality to any ethnē, it entailed an abdication of their primary duty as called Apostles. Anyone who abdicates the responsibilities of an office, is unworthy of that office. Hence, it is impossible that the Apostolic authority could have been worthily passed on during the time of the priesthood ban. Yet because LDS theology requires that apostolic succession be passed on worthily – the whole doctrine of the Great Apostasy depends on this claim – the LDS Church has invalid Apostolic succession by its own standards, and is, therefore, apostate by its own standards.
A
aquabatix
Guest
Excelent post.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I don’t deny that the African priesthood ban was taught as “doctrine”, that is, as a very high level teaching. I simply point to its absence as an explicit teaching within core LDS scripture. And if the LDS want to point to their practice of “continuing revelation” as a way of dealing with the doctrines of past years, then they can point to the basic Christian idea of the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit as justification.
The problem here is that Jesus is telling the apostles to teach and baptize all nations; Jesus says nothing about ordaining to the priesthood all nations. Because Jesus does not mention priestly ordination as something that should be universally performed, in this verse, I can understand why Brigham Young and subsequent LDS leaders could find justification for their African priesthood ban. I may disagree with the ban, but I can intellectually see how the argument could conceivably be made. And the LDS did go out and teach and baptize African populations, even during the priesthood ban, so they were technically still following the Great Commission.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Mormons are not sola scriptura.
Either way, the First Presidency taught that the doctrine was a direct commandment from the Lord, as we have already established.
S
soren1
Guest
If you read the Great Commission in a vacuum, apart from the rest of the New Testament, your argument would hold good. But I made a point of mentioning how the same theme functions in Paul. The Great Commission was, in its time, a radical little statement, a concise expression of the total challenge Christianity to the worldview of Jewish ethnocentrism. “Teach all nations” cannot, therefore, be interpreted in a minimalistic sense. The point Jesus is making is that all nations are to be taught, because no distinctions among the nations exist any longer. This underlying rationale is part of the Great Commission’s basic meaning. If we do not see this implication, then we are simply not reading it theologically, or even historically.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Correct. I believe you’re catching on.Mormons are not sola scriptura.
True, but it was also taught that the priesthood ban would one day end. So, why complain that the ban ended?
- Status