A Talk Last Night With My Daughter

[_Buffalo]

I've never thought about it like that.

but it still is a long time to us here on this earth.

think of all the many blacks then?

must be a reason.

The reason is it was a common 19th century idea that blacks were descended from the Biblical Canaanites, and under a curse. A contemporary idea used to justify their mistreatment. This idea also turns up in the Pearl of Great Price.

Most religions abandoned this myth, but Mormons couldn't abandon it because it had been cemented in scripture. It turns out that the Hebrews were culturally and racially identical to the Canaanites, and only gradually evolved their own unique religious beliefs centered around the war/metal god Yahweh. But the Canaanites were not black, but rather a Semitic people.

[_consiglieri]

I've never thought about it like that.

but it still is a long time to us here on this earth.

think of all the many blacks then?

must be a reason.

I think you are right about this, LJ.

The problem is that seeking a reason while maintaining the infallibility of LDS prophets is what led to the fence-sitting argument in the first place.

Not to mention the curse of Cain, a favorite standby.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_sock puppet]

I've never thought about it like that.

but it still is a long time to us here on this earth.

think of all the many blacks then?

must be a reason.

I think you are right about this, LJ.

The problem is that seeking a reason while maintaining the infallibility of LDS prophets is what led to the fence-sitting argument in the first place.

Not to mention the curse of Cain, a favorite standby.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

A canonized one at that!

[_Yoda]

So had the Prophet Brigham Young led the Church astray with his teaching about blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence?

Yes. In my opinion, it is one of the main reasons that the JoD remains a work that is not considered official LDS canon.

Also, let me add here that I believe he played a large part in the Relief Society being thought of as a lesser auxilary organization.

[_consiglieri]

Lizard Jew, this is a fascinating article from Sunstone magazine which outlines the history of women and the priesthood. You can really see how society really plays into the evolution:

http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/115-6-30-43.pdf

Thanks for the link, Liz.

I just printed it off and will give a copy to my daughter this evening.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

So Holland Trump's Brigham Young? I thought Prophet trumped Apostle in the Mormon hierarchy?

I hear what you are saying, but it seems that in practice, recency Trump's primacy, regardless of hierarchy.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Yoda]

So this God-time speak is an instance of one of those goofy mistakes of elohim/jehovah not taking to heart and implementing that old rule of public speaking and writing: know your audience and address them?

You have to remember...God did not initiate the ban. It was a mistake of his prophet.

I don't have an answer as to why the mistake was left to stand uncorrected for the time frame it was.

The only thing that makes sense is that God's time frame is different from our own.

The ban was ultimately repealed. Whether it was left in place as a test of faith, I don't know.

[_Yoda]

Lizard Jew, this is a fascinating article from Sunstone magazine which outlines the history of women and the priesthood. You can really see how society really plays into the evolution:

http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/115-6-30-43.pdf

Thanks for the link, Liz.

I just printed it off and will give a copy to my daughter this evening.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Cool! Let me know what she has to say!

[_Buffalo]

So this God-time speak is an instance of one of those goofy mistakes of elohim/jehovah not taking to heart and implementing that old rule of public speaking and writing: know your audience and address them?

You have to remember...God did not initiate the ban. It was a mistake of his prophet.

I don't have an answer as to why the mistake was left to stand uncorrected for the time frame it was.

The only thing that makes sense is that God's time frame is different from our own.

The ban was ultimately repealed. Whether it was left in place as a test of faith, I don't know.

Actually what makes more sense is that God is not at the helm. Or God doesn't care about his black/female children. Both more persuasive than the time frame argument, since God notices even the fall of a little sparrow, per Jesus.

[_consiglieri]

Also, part of the Second Annointing is for the couple, once the husband's feet have been washed by one of the 12 in the temple and then blessed, is for them, in the privacy of their own home, for the wife to complete the process toward her husband. Must be some authority in the female there to do that.

I think this is an important point you make, and could possibly have something to do with the reduction in prominence of this ordinance.

We make a lot of the fact that in the endowment, the man has to bring his wife through the veil by knowing her new name.

But the second annointing balances that to some degree, in having the wife administer an ordinance of exaltation to her husband. In the "true gospel," the man may call his wife through the veil, but it is the woman who is instrumental in resurrecting her husband.

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that all four gospels are united in the story that it was a woman (or a group of women) who first encountered the resurrected Savior.

One might wonder whether they had something to do with it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri