The Concept of Race, in the Gospel

I expect to hear much more about the priesthood ban the LDS church imposed on black Africans as the US presidential election gets closer.  And I’d expect LDS blogs to begin either defending the ban, attempting to explain it away, or talking about how the church needs to formally apologize for being racist and move on — [This recent one from Wheat & Tares comes to mind]

Brand-nu’s comments on the It maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no [one]’s person post got me to write out my view of human race — especially as it pertains to the racist doctrines of Cain’s mark and Canaan’s curse being the black skin of Africans and their enslavement by Europeans.

The origins of associating Cain’s mark with having black skin – and then tying that together with Canaan’s curse of slavery – and then rolling it all in with the priesthood restriction pertaining to Pharaoh [through Ham] in the book of Abraham — all originate with Victorian-era, Western European/American attempts to justify the enslavement of Africans.

No group ever persecutes, enslaves, tortures, or murders another group without first justifying their actions by placing the subjugated group outside the moral community of all human-beings [by one means or another].

Cain’s mark:

The entire point of the YHVH-author’s writings in Genesis was to explain how the world at the present [the time at which he was writing] came to be that way.  Why does man labor to till the earth, why does woman labor to birth children, why do some people organize as separate family-units and wear clothing – while others organize as sexually-open tribes and wear little clothing, why do some people raise crops and flocks – while others roam the earth and hunt nomadically, why do humans speak different languages? – etc.

The story of Cain’s mark is that author’s attempt to explain the existence of the nomadic Sleb tribes of Arabia, which were contemporaries with the people who wrote the biblical text.  These people were qayin [the word translated as “Cain”], which means “workers in metal”.

Their own cultural traditions explain that they were nomadic because, “the ground does not yield fruit to them.”  Also, as a tribal group, they are known to take seven-fold revenge on a person who kills one of their own fellow-tribesmen.  In other words, they start to sound a lot like:

and Cain went into the field
and Cain talked with Abel
his brother
and it came to pass
that while they were in the field
Cain rose up against Abel
his brother
and slew him
and Cain gloried in that which he had done
saying

I am free
surely the flocks of my brother
falleth into my hands

and YHVH said unto Cain

where is Abel
thy brother?

And he said

I know not
am I my brother’s keeper?

and YHVH said

what hast thou done?
the voice of thy brother’s blood
cries unto me from the ground
and now thou shalt be cursed from the earth
which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood
from thy hand
when thou tillest the ground
it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength
a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth

and Cain said unto YHVH

satan tempted me because of my brother’s flocks
and I was wroth also
for his offering thou didst accept
and not mine

my punishment is greater than I can bear
behold
thou hast driven me out this day
from the face of YHVH
and from thy face shall I be hid
and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth
and it shall come to pass
that he that findeth me will slay me
because of mine iniquities
for these things are not hid from YHVH

and I
YHVH
said unto him

whosoever slayeth thee
vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold

and I
YHVH
set a mark upon Cain
lest any finding him should kill him

and Cain was shut out from the presence of YHVH
and with his wife
and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of nod
on the east of eden

Note there is no mention of priesthood – only that a mark and a different lifestyle would characterize Cain’s family from Seth’s family.

Ham’s curse:

To get from Cain’s mark to banning priesthood – we have to go through Ham:

and Noah began to be a husbandman
and he planted a vineyard
and he drank of the wine
and was drunken
and he was uncovered within his tent

and Ham
the father of Canaan
saw the nakedness of his father
and told his two brothers outside
and Shem and Japheth took a garment
and laid it upon both their shoulders
and went backward
and covered the nakedness of their father
and their faces were backward
and they saw not their father’s nakedness

and Noah awoke from his wine
and knew what his younger son had done unto him
and he said

cursed be Canaan
a servant of servants shall he be
unto his brothers

and he said

blessed be YHVH
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

Still no mention of priesthood restriction or black skin.  In fact, if this curse means anything about the rights of the priesthood [given the servant/minister role of priests], there’s a case to be made that Canaan was being given the priesthood [being a servant of servants, a servant to his brothers] — though I think it’s more likely that the priesthood isn’t even part of this story at all.

There’s nothing about the rights of the priesthood until we get to Enoch’s prophecies:

and again YHVH said unto me

look

and I looked towards the north
and I beheld the people of Canaan
which dwelt in tents
and YHVH said unto me

prophesy

and I prophesied
saying

behold the people of Canaan
which are numerous
shall go forth in battle
array against the people of Shem
and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed
and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land
and the land shall be barren and unfruitful
and none other people shall dwell there
but the people of Canaan
for behold
YHVH shall curse the land with much heat
and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever
and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan
that they were despised among all people

and it came to pass
that YHVH said unto me

look

and I looked
and I beheld the land of Sharon and of Enoch and of Omner and of Heni and of Shem and of Haner and of Hanannihah
and all the inhabitants thereof
and YHVH said unto me

go to this people
and say unto them

repent

lest I come out
and smite them with a curse
and they die

and the record of Abraham:

now this king of egypt
was a descendant from the loins of Ham
and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth
from this descent sprang all the Egyptians
and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land

the land of egypt being first discovered by a woman
who was the daughter of Ham
and the daughter of Egyptus
which in the Chaldean language signifies egypt
which signifies that which is forbidden
when this woman discovered the land
it was under water
who afterward settled her sons in it
and thus
from Ham
sprang that race
which preserved the curse in the land

now the first government of egypt was established by Pharaoh
the eldest son of Egyptus
the daughter of Ham
and it was after the manner of the government of Ham
which was patriarchal

Pharaoh
being a righteous man
established his kingdom
and judged his people wisely and justly all his days
seeking earnestly to imitate that order
established by the fathers in the first generations
in the days of the first patriarchal reign
even in the reign of Adam
and also of Noah
his father
who blessed him with the blessings of the earth
and with the blessings of wisdom
but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood

now
Pharaoh
being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood
notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah
through Ham
therefore my father was led away by their idolatry

The assumption is that Noah’s curse of Canaan is the curse pertaining to the priesthood mentioned in Abraham’s record.

However, that blessing/cursing was given to Pharaoh:

Pharaoh
being a righteous man
[…]
and also of Noah
his father
who blessed him with the blessings of the earth
and with the blessings of wisdom
but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood
now
Pharaoh
being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood […]

and we do not have any scriptural record for what Noah said to Pharaoh.

Cain/Ham/Canaan have nothing to do with black Africans:

In summation:

• Cain’s mark mentions nothing about rights of the priesthood or about having black skin [because his descendants were Arabians]
• Ham/Canaan’s curse [although mentioning the rights of the priesthood] is said to pertain to Egyptians [who aren’t black, but are Arabians]

Any appeal to Cain’s mark or to Ham’s curse is completely irrelevant with respect to black Africans and the priesthood because neither of them were black Africans.  Cain and Ham would be the ancestors of Arabian people.  Even though Egypt is technically in the continent of Africa [geographically-speaking] – Egyptians are Arabs [cultural/genetically-speaking].

Furthermore, even if it were possible to assert that the historical character named Cain [and/or Ham], is the forbearer of black Africans – to associate that with a priesthood-ban on them [by lineage], one would then have to demonstrate something that would be equally impossible to assert – i.e., that their lineage is also found in no other human-being on Earth.

You see, every generation back we go in time, the number of forebearers a person has increases at an exponential rate [2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g-grandparents, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and so on].  So as a bit of mental exercise – let’s wind the clock back to 1400 AD [~30 generations].  At this point, the number of potential ancestors you would have (2³⁰) is two-times what the world population was at that same time.

When we re-wind the clock back to biblical time-periods [588, 1700, 2300, or 4000 BC] and ponder not only the exponential number of forebearers one will potentially have – but also how they have been scattered across the globe by things like the flood of Noah, the tower of Babel, the scattering of the 10 tribes of Israel, war, famine, persecution, etc. – it gets pretty silly to start talking about the odds that each-and-every African person alive today does not have even one of the “righteous” in their family tree and that each-and-every European person alive today does not have even one of the “cursed” in theirs?.

Racial distinctions in the gospel:

The best thing to do is to take it as granted that the current scriptural record we have in the Bible is a pretty incomplete picture concerning the affairs of God throughout the whole human race.  The Bible is the book that’s come by way of the Jew and is their record — and so we find that it deals primarily with Arabians [go figure].

Until the scriptural record is more complete — until we receive the prophets of the other nations, tribes, and people, with their prophetic records that will come forth from Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, etc. — we cannot speak with certainty of how God has dealt with the other races and if there are promises made to them that we know that of.  Which is why the best thing to do [until then] is stick to an:

[god] hath made of one blood
all nations of men

and

there is neither jew
nor greek

approach to associating a state of righteousness or a cursed state to any of the races of human-kind that are around today.  Because if we allow ourselves to be guided by a race-based rendering of something like:

the order of this priesthood was confirmed
to be handed down from father to son
and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed
to whom the promises were made

the sword of judgment cuts both ways.  Personally, as a literal descendent of Scottish/Irish forebearers, who [as far as our scriptures tell us] received none of the “original promises” themselves – I’ll end-up cutting myself out too.

But to attempt to include myself as a European by saying something like the scattering of the lost 10 tribes would be sufficient to “count me in” to the blessed lineage — would also likely allow for the inclusion of a whole host of other races and nationalities that someone might be trying to separate themselves from in the first place.

[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men:

All races were [at one point] a single race — the family of Adam and Eve.  The division into separate races has been a story of adaptation to unique human conditions, meaning all that we currently call “race” is a form of the miraculous human ability to adapt to the environmental conditions they find themselves in.

As a part of the restoration of all things — the gospel will be taken to every tribe, nations, kindred, tongue, etc. on the earth.

for behold
I say unto you
that Zion shall flourish
and the glory of YHVH shall be upon her
and she shall be an ensign unto the people
and there shall come unto her
out of every nation under heaven

As a part of the gathering of the people of the Lord – these human races will be brought back into the one, single human family.  Meaning that since Zion will not be established by unrelated persons — every nation under heaven will become connected by and will b be engaging in inter-racial marriages.

Race is purely conventional – and has no application of eternal significance.  The main component of what we use for racial distinction is skin color, which is composed largely of just two things:

• Melanin, which is produced in the skin as a response to oxidative stress of UV light
• Blood, which is visible through the skin in the vascular system

Now, a resurrected body has no need for protection from oxidative stress, and it will also not quickened with hemoglobin.  Thus, the skin color will not appear as any mortal human on the earth has ever looked.

When the scriptures say that resurrected persons will come forth in either the resurrection of just or the resurrection of the unjust:

and [they] shall come forth
they who have done good
in the resurrection of the just
and they who have done evil
in the resurrection of the unjust

it is saying that there will only be two discernible groups [what we could call “races”] of human beings after the resurrection from the dead:  the just and the unjust.

All those who come forth in the resurrection of the just will have a new body, patterned after the body of Christ, which is patterned after the body of God [meaning we’ll all have the same “genes”] – thus the color of their skin will all look exactly the same.

The fleshy-body that is sown in the earth upon death will arise as either wheat or tare [just or unjust], and this is according to the spirit that possessed that body at the time it died:

you do not sow the body that will be
but you sow bare grain
and it may chance be of wheat
or of some other grain

What makes a person “just” or “unjust” is not merits, nor lineage — but solely the state of the person’s right-brain-heart and their faith in Jesus Christ.  God looks only upon the right-brain-heart of mankind, which is something that has nothing to do with their genetic lineage or any supposed curses on black Africans.

So, given a future state in which no resurrected bodies will be colored by melanin and hemoglobin, and given that God has made of one blood every nation of mankind from the beginning, and that, as far as the gospel is concerned, “there is neither Jew nor Greek” – any race-based exclusion from the gospel [or from the priesthood] based on such flimsy ground as being related to someone who lived over 5,000 years ago makes a pretty poor “hill-to-die-on”.

Next Article by Justin:  The Written Records

Previous Article by Justin:  Deep Waters:  Having their Hearts Knit Together in Unity and in Love

In Search of a New Church Home:  Part II — Unitarian Universalism

The Garment

The following post has an updated version, “The Garment, with additions“

Any member who has received initiation into the kingdom of God has been authorized to wear the garment of the holy priesthood — called “Garments” by most members.  My wife’s family, my ecclesiastical leaders, and my temple’s presidency spent a decent amount of time preparing me for receiving the garment.  These garments play an important role in the identity of Latter-day Saints.

What I was told:

• Garments should be kept completely white in color.  No stains, etc.
• Garments should not be left on the floor before or after doing laundry.
• Garments should be laundered separate from other clothing.
• Garments should not show under the other clothing you wear.
• Garments should only be removed for absolutely necessary reasons, e.g. showering and having sexual relations with spouse, and should be put back on as soon as reasonably possible.
• Garments must be touching your skin, i.e. no panties or bras under the Garments for women [my wife was told by a temple matron that during menstruation, the pad should be applied directly to the Garments instead of using panties].
• Garments offer physical protection from injuries such as burns.

What the ceremony says: [Note, I was initiated post-2005]

• The officiator is under proper authority
• The garment is now authorized
• The garment is to be worn throughout life.
• The garment represents what was given to Adam/Eve when found naked in the garden.
• The garment is called the garment of the holy priesthood.
• Inasmuch as the garment is not defiled — meaning the wearer is true and faithful to the covenants — it will be a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer until the earthly probation is finished.

What I see as divergent:

Where is the physical color of white stated as important?  My stake president put a lot of emphasis on laundering our garments — inspecting and destroying an pair that become discolored.  Is the focus on the outward color a manifestation of dogmatism and focusing on the outward [clothing, behavior, etc.] in general?  Why focus on getting the garment physically soiled as a manifestation of “defiling” it — instead of on turning away from the covenants?

Why should we worry so much about covering our coverings?  I mostly mourn for women in this regard.  Both in my ward and online [here, here, and here], I have found that most women fret constantly about whether or not their clothing is covering their garments or whether to wear panties/bras under or over the garment.  Shopping is difficult for them, etc.  If the garment is intended to be our covering — then why care so much about covering the covering?

When worn, the garment will cover your nakedness.  We have previously discussed how this is only secondary — meaning the covering of nakedness is not the express purpose of the garment.  If this is the case, then why be so concerned with constantly wearing the garment?  That the garment covers nakedness does not imply that we should always cover it.  And, of course, there are the stories of members who believe in having intercourse will keeping the garment on — however, this may be an urban legend because I have never direct a direct anecdote from someone who does this [maybe someone here has].  Further, the garment is a shield and a protection inasmuch as it is not defiled — not inasmuch as you keep it on your body.

What I still wonder:

How does being instructed to wear the garment throughout one’s life relate to the truths learned from the Body Modesty post?

How problematic are the changes to the initiatory ordinance as it relates to nudity.  Mainly I wonder — when are we sprinkling?  I plan on redoing the washing, anointing, and clothing in the garment for my wife and me under tribal authority because I fear what the Church (TM) has done by succumbing to pressure to appease feelings of body modesty in members.

Next Article by Justin:  The World I See

Previous Article by Justin:  Connecting with Pixels

See also:  Body Modesty is not a principle of the gospel