Was the 'thing' (better term???) about Blacks & the 'cain thing' routinely taught in ChurchCo?

so many details about cain & able, Ham, Noah & the arc, on & on!

i.e. was it in a regular lesson plan, or, was it more a matter of individual interest & research?

I joined ChurchCo in '64 (?), and my employment in transportation operations often kept me away on Sundays... so I'm not good source on this.

by the late 60s/early 70s, in Seattle (BYU athletes being jeered - dissed at the UW games) it was a matter of much interest, that's for sure, there were many excuses & explanations flying around.

anyone?

You are right about you are not a good source. I joined in 79..it was DOCTRINE TAUGHT...do research even tho oaks says it's not the answer.

Have you ever been active? Low information member?

I think going to Ricks & on a mission counts as Active.

nope, that's not active. you have to be at sacrament meeting. i
you think if you served a mission and leave the church you are still considered active? that thinking baffles me.

Absolutely! All of it was taught as doctrine! Repeatedly. In Sunday school and in seminary. I remember the lessons, the teachers who taught us, and the questions we would ask. I don't remember if I was taught this in Primary, though.

After the Civil Rights Movement, the cult was more silent about things, and, like GNPE1, I didn't attend Sunday school class regularly. I was called to be the Primary pianist when I was in Jr, high and high school. I was able to wake up at 5:30 am for seminary only about half the time.

When we first moved to Salt Lake City, years later, a teacher mentioned the Black issue, and put a completely different spin on it. I raised my hand in class, and said that I was taught in my California ward that the souls who who were "sitting on the fence" during the War in Heaven, came to earth as the descendants of Cain and Ham, cursed with the Black skin--so was I taught WRONG information back then? Or What?

There was dead silence in the classroom. The members of my new ward looked at me like I was crazy! The teacher (a professor at the U) said that he had never heard of such a thing!

That was my first experience of being gas-lighted. I had to call my TBM brother in California, who has a photographic memory, and ask him what we were taught, and he confirmed that I remembered correctly.

I was so embarrassed, that I never asked another question or made another comment in Sunday school or RS class, ever. Neither did anyone else, for that matter. Just listen and keep quiet.

Mark E. Peterson, speaking at at Brigham Young University in 1954:
++++++++++++++

"We cannot escape the conclusion that because
of performance in our pre-existence some of us
are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as
Indians, some as Negroes, some Americans, some
as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and
punishments… Is it not reasonable to believe that
less worthy spirits would come through less
favored lineage?...


“Think of the Negro, cursed as to the
Priesthood… This Negro, who, in the preexistence
lived the type of life which justified the Lord in
sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain
with a black skin…. In spite of all he did in the
pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro
accepts the gospel… he can and will enter the
celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant,
but he will get celestial glory.*

* "Race Problems As They Affect The Church--by Elder Mark
E. Petersen August 27th 1954."

++++++++++++
Oh Lord hear the words of an LDS Prophet's mouth:

"When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143; photo below p. 26)."

++++++++++++++++

In 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, Brigham Young declared:

Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 290-291; photo below p. 27).

See: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_part2.htm

+++++++++++++++++

Summary: The way I look at it, today's Mormons and Mormon leaders can put any spin on things they want. They can obfuscate. They can rip off old labels and stick on new labels. They can engage in semantics/word games.

But at the end of the day, one of their core claims is that their Prophet (top leader guy) will never lead the church astray. Another core claim is that the Prophet and Apostles are inspired men whose PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY is to teach truth and correct doctrine. Any widespread belief that actually rises to the level of enforced policy of the church and remains in place for decades, if not generations, logically has to be seen as either: (1) DOCTRINE (based on the fact that it was implemented day to day, year after year, decade after decade, right under the noses of the Prophets and Apostles, as well as with their full endorsement; or (2) PROOF that the Prophets and Apostles are not what they have claimed to be and that they indeed CAN LEAD THE CHURCH ASTRAY and that they ARE NOT INSPIRED and that they have failed in their primary responsibility of teaching truth and correct doctrine. Logically, they can't be wrong and they cannot endorse wrong beliefs for over 100 years and still be seen as men who need to be revered and respected as the most reliable sources of truth and correct doctrine revealed by God.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

"......from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances."

++++

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted TODAY as the official doctrine of the Church." {{Note carefully, how this last sentence is worded. None of the explanations are accepted T O D A Y as the official doctrine of the Church. (Subtext. Not today. But in the past they were accepted as doctrine.}}

+++++

"The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings."

+++++

"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, PRESIDENT MCKAY DID NOT FEEL IMPRESSED TO LIFT THE BAN."

+++++

"Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, MOVED CHURCH LEADERS." {{Note: In other words, the erstwhile doctrine, now relabeled as a "policy" became such a headache and became so impractical to continue that the CHURCH LEADERS realized that they had no practical choice but to get rid of the policy or face a global public relations debacle that could be fatal to the Church's future growth aspirations. So they got themselves a "revelation" that made it okay to get rid of a "policy" that had been endorsed and supported by Church Leaders for more than 100 years. If anyone understands how this revelation came about and still feels confident that the Church Leaders have more inspiration than the average Joe Blow on the street, they probably need to get their IQ checked.}}

Thank You Wally.

All of that is what I was taught, as doctrine. We heard it more in Priesthood meeting than anything else. The guy who taught our teachers and priests meetings was studying to be an Institute teacher and I think because of that he loved getting into all that kind of stuff because he was getting a lot more details in his own classes and loved showing all he had learned.

I don't remember it being taught to me in primary classes in the 60s, but it was common knowledge with my classmates in those years.

Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation were in my home and when I tried to discuss it with my mother the answers were always referenced back to those and other books.

I was still in primary when I remember arguing with my mother about the 2nd article of faith and Blacks. Why were men only punished for their own sins and not Adam's transgression but Blacks were black because of Cain's transgression.

I hold the mormon church responsible for institutionalized racism for one reason, if nothing else. When I was an active church member, it was clear to me that speaking out against any church leader (past or present), would have been unacceptable and that if I did it, I would have been excommunicated. Brigham young was a racist (as is very evident from what he said publicly). He implemented institutionalized racism in the church and told us why he did it in his racist rants. For the church to accept that behavior and to call him a prophet and to continue the racist policies of this man for another 150+ years was wrong. They lie when they blame God and say they don't know why God made them do it. If I would have protested, I would have been excommunicated. It was in this environment that the prevailing, accepted answer that was taught in church, was that the blacks were less valiant souls in the pre-existance. Regardless of what the church ever says now or in the future, they allowed racist teachings in their organization, and protected the racist who institutionalized that racism. They have never taken ownership of that wrong-doing. So that stain upon them remains.

they have to give up on their whole "line of priesthood authority" logic.

Ever since Joseph Smith made up a bunch of lies about getting his priesthood authority from John the Baptist (Aaronic) and Peter, James and John (Melchizedek), each of whom supposedly visited Joseph in the flesh (the resurrected flesh) to lay their hands on his and Ollie's heads, the authority claims of the Mormon leaders have been based on the claim that this special priesthood and all callings based thereon have been passed downed the line to them.

A fallen prophet in the line...a false prophet, who worshiped a false god (Michael/Adam) would throw that whole line of priesthood and authority succession into doubt. It would open up a whole new conversation on what happens to the authority of the restored church when it is acknowledged that the restored church's 2nd Prophet was a guy who spent most of his career as prophet deserving to be excommunicated.

It would be like a line of royalty tracing their right to reign back to a common ancestor 150 years ago who, as it turns out, was an usurper and mass murderer who had never had a legitimate claim on the throne. The last thing those modern royals would want to do is to publicly acknowledge the lies, murders and looting carried out by that ancestor.

But I'm thinking logically. Nelson and his buddies seem to be beta testing a new level of illogical talking points to see how much nonsense they can get the ordinary members to swallow...and still get a heartfelt "thank you" in return.

methinks that Russ got reports of how we & others tweak "Mormon" into MORmON, that's why he's prohibiting the use of the former...


make sense?


Also:

I didn't ever attend high school seminary, by the time I was attending the UW ('73), the black/priesthood story was 'in transition'. This was before correlation, and the wildly varying stories on the black thing Could have contributed to that decision / implementation (?)

Abraham 1:27 "Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the priesthood. "

His lineage being that of Ham the son of Noah and Egyptus a descendant of Cain "preserved the curse in the land" Abraham 1:24

The book of Abraham, written by Joseph Smith clearly indicates that Blacks could not have the priesthood.

Furthermore Moses 7:22 concerning Zion or the City of Heaven

" Enoch beheld...the people which 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."

Clearly stating that the curse or mark of Cain was black skin.
Anyone with access to the pearl of great price can read this for themselves and lay the origin of the doctrine clearly at the feet of Joseph Smith.

I’m with you, GNPE. I didn’t hear it that much either. I joined in ‘71. But my ex wanted to make sure I knew it all. So, clearly, he learned it somewhere.

thank u, Kathleen;

as I recall, the PoGP wasn't ever the center of Mormon scripture or gospel study....


I was very forth-right up front in saying my church experience was limited because of time & work situations, I never claimed to be 'in' on stuff as much as heritage members / lifers!

This doctrine was indeed taught in primary and sunday school. And here's the kicker: I was baptized several years after the priesthood ban was lifted. I know that they were part of primary lessons. The war in heaven; the claim that blacks were fence-sitters. The curse of dark skin and the seed of cain.

I am pretty sure that these lessons continued another 10 years. Sometimes, lessons were skipped. This is why it's important to have access to the uncollected primary and youth manuals. The church doesn't want to admit their teachings.