www.massimo.bigsmart.com
To go back to The Bible and the Book of Mormon Testimonies Amazing Testimony Great Testimonies
(C) Copyright 1998 By Massimo Franceschini all the rights reserved
There is an erroneous notion among some in the Christian world that
Mormons are racist. The reason for this assertion is because, in the
past, we didn't allow those with black skin to hold the priesthood.
Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always
treated black people with dignity and respect throughout it's entire
history, the notion that we are inherently a racist religion still seems
to exist in the minds of some.
From the beginning we have always said that the decision to withhold the
priesthood from blacks was not one made by man, but was a directive from
God. Even so, there are those who can't comprehend why a loving God
would treat one group of people different than another. However, to
those who believe in the Bible, this shouldn't be a mystery. Therefore,
to answer this question, all we need do is to analyze the scriptures to
find out how and why God has dealt with different races of people.
The prophet Joseph Smith declared that it was the Lord who revealed to
him that those who are descendants from Cain couldn't hold the
priesthood. But why is this? What would be God's reasoning to exclude
this group of people? To begin our quest for understanding we need to
determine who are the descendants of Cain. In Genesis 4:9-15 we read:
"And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said I
know not: am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done?
The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground and now
art thou 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 yeld unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a
vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, my
punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold. thou hast driven me out
this day from the face of the earth; 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 every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the lord
said unto him, therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be
taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain."
There are several interesting things on this scripture. First of all,
Abel and Cain could not have been the only children Adam and Eve had at
this time, otherwise who is it that Cain would be in fear of? It
certainly couldn't have been his parents, Adam and Eve. Secondly, who
taught Cain and Abel to offer up sacrifices to the Lord if it wasn't
their parents? (see <a href = www.erols.com/crest/adam.htm> "Adam - the
First" </a> for a fuller examination of this subject.)
Thirdly, and more importantly to our discussion, why did God put a mark
upon Cain? The Biblical answer is so that others would be able to
identify him and would not harm him. Furthermore, there was a curse
added to the mark which would severely afflict anyone harming Cain. That
clearly infers that there were more people living at the time Cain
slayed his brother than just his parents. The scriptures plainly
indicate that Cain was afraid of meeting these other people, and
therefore, in order to protect him from them, the Lord set a mark upon
him.
Since, at that time, there was no photo I.D. system, the mark which God
set upon Cain was the only way that other people could identify him and
prevent others from taking vengeance upon him. Although there are some
disputes about what this mark was, many scholars and some traditions
among the Jews declare that the mark was that of a black skin, making
him the first black man upon the earth. The point is that this
interpretation is not just a Mormon idea, and such an notion did not
originate with Joseph Smith.
But, if that is so, then how did those with black skin survive the
flood? The Bible declares that after the flood only Noah, his wife, his
three sons, and their wives were still alive. Then, who carried on the
black race? The Bible doesn't answer this question, but fortunately, we
have the Book of Abraham. Although there are many who don't believe in
this extra-biblical set of scriptures, yet it does provide a part of the
puzzle that we are trying to put together.
In Abraham 1:21-27 we learn, "Now this king of Egypt was a descendant
from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood 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 Egyptus, which in the
Chaldeans 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 generation, 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 blessing 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."
From this scripture we know that the descendants of Ham, who were the
founders of Egypt, were cursed concerning the priesthood. But why? The
answer is found in Genesis 9:18-27. "And the sons of Noah, that went
forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham and Japheth: and Ham is the father
of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole
earth overspread." In other words, all the descendants of the earth came
from these three people. Most Bible dictionaries declare that the
Semitic people, including the Hebrews, came from Shem, the Gentiles,
who make up most of the European nations, came from Japheth, and from
Ham came those who were "dark-skinned" and who inhabited eastern and
northern Africa, and the Palestine area "before the arrival of the
Semitic races."
Continuing we read, "And Noah began to be an 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 this two brethren without. 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 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."
The first question that comes to mind is, Why was Noah so angry with
Ham? What was it that he did that was so terribly wrong? From our
perspective this incident certainly seems like a very trivial thing. But
even more puzzling is that Noah cursed his grandson, Canaan, instead of
the boy's father. What would make such a righteous man like Noah do
that?
The answers to these questions are the keys to understanding everything
about this subject.
But first, we need to ask ourselves another question. Was the prophecy
of his curse which Noah placed on his grandson, fulfilled? If the answer
is "yes? then we have to conclude that Noah's words were the will of the
Lord. Certainly, this was not
because of any Mormon influence. Rather, Noah, being a high priest of
God, made the curse and God honored it. Everybody can ponder this.
"According to
ancient Jewish Midrashic tradition, it suggests that Ham did not just
see his father laying naked, but actually uncovered him by stealing the
garment he was wearing. According to the Midrash, this was the garment
which God had made for Adam in the Garden of Eden and had been passed
down through the patriarchs to Noah. This garment represented the rights
and privileges of the first born, which included the right of holding
the patriarchal priesthood. By stealing it, Ham sought to gain this
right for himself."
Also:
"The Midrashic sources fill in the details of this otherwise puzzling
story. They suggest first that Ham was far more culpable than shown in
the biblical account. He did not just see his father uncovered, he
uncovered him --- and then stole the garment of the priesthood in an
attempt to usurp the firstborn authority which had not been given to him
legitimately, and to make permanent for Noah one of the precluding
ritual conditions. An entire tradition traces the passing of the stolen
garments from Ham to Cush to Nimrod to Esau, in whose time they were
finally returned to Jacob and the rightful line."
(http://members.aol.com/stclairst/lossphd.html)
But why was Canaan cursed instead Ham? In my opinion, it's because Ham
already held the Priesthood. Rather than taking the priesthood away from
Ham, Noah cursed Ham's descendants in regard to them holding the
priesthood. It is interesting to note that it was the descendants of Ham
who built the tower of Babel.
there were twelve tribes of Israel yet only one
tribe was allowed to hold the priesthood -- the tribe of Levi. Isn't
that discrimination? (Racism is nothing more than discrimination because
on the color of one's skin). Isn't that being unfair to the men of the
other eleven tribes?
But the discrimination goes even deeper than that. Only Aaron and the
first born sons of HIS descendants were allowed to hold the position of
High Priest. Isn't that also discrimination? Isn't that unfair to all the
other Levite priests to deny them the opportunity to become a high
priest just because they're not of Aaron's lineage?
Later on we see that when it was time for Abraham to give a wife to his
beloved son Isaac, he said to his servant:" And I will make thee swear
by the Lord, the God of Heaven, and the god of the earth, that thou
shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites,
among whom I dwell. And my master made me swear, saying, thou shalt not
take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites"
If we are to be consistent in our definitions, we would have to say that
was a racist comment for Abraham to make, especially if the Canannites
had black skin. And yet we know that Abraham was a righteous man and God
was well pleased with him. The only conclusion we can therefore draw is
that God didn't think Abraham's actions were racist. Indeed, anyone
would be hard pressed to show from the scriptures that God disapproved
of Abraham for not wanting his son to marry a Canaanite.
But why didn't God consider such behavior as being racist? If the
Canaanites were cursed as to holding the priesthood, and Isaac married a
Canaanite woman, then his children would also inherit the curse, thereby
destroying the promise God made to Abraham concerning his seed. And so,
to insure that the priesthood would be passed on through succeeding
generations, Abraham instructed his servant to swear his son would not
marry a Canaanite, and God was pleased by that course or action
In Genesis 27:46 we further read, "And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am
weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth: If Jacob take a wife
of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are the daughters of the
land, what good shall my life do me?"
Regardless of what color of skin the daughters of Heth had, can we not
say that Rebecca's comments sound very racist? And yet nowhere in the
Bible do we find that God was displeased by her comments.
Later on, in Genesis 28:1-2 we read, "And Isaac called Jacob, and
blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a
wife of the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Paddam-aram, to the house
of Bethel, thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence"
From this statement some would conclude that Isaac also must have been a
racist. But, if there was still a curse on the Canaanites, pronounced by
Noah, a man of God, then it is clear that there was a good reason for
his charge to Jacob. And that reason had nothing to do with a racist
attitude on the part of Isaac. Instead, it had everything to do with the
curse God had placed on the Canaanites. In fact, there are quite a few
verses of scripture throughout the Bible where the Lord gives a distinct
warning to avoid a marriage with the descendants of Ham. And how would
they know who those descendants were if there was no difference in the
color of their skin?
However, racism doesn't just happen to blacks. The term "racism" implies
discrimination against a race of people. Throughout the Old Testament,
the Lord also warned Israel not to marry or have close ties with other
non-black nations. Such declarations would also constitute a racism
statement. But notice that it is God who is making these remarks. The
Israelites were only following the wishes of the Lord.
But some will say that was only done in Old Testament times. However, in
the New Testament we also find the Lord giving similar commandments.
Speaking of the twelve specially chosen apostles we read, "These twelve
Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the
Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" (Matthew
10:5).
Why would Jesus tell them this? And then there is the story of how Jesus
wouldn't say a word to a Canannite woman who implored Him to have mercy
on her daughter who was sick (Matthew 15:21-28). Was it because Jesus
was a racist that he preached only to the Jews? (see my homepage for
further analysis of this story.) If we use the same standard that others
use to condemn Mormons of being racists, then we would have to say Jesus
was also a racist.
But the discrimination doesn't end there. In Acts 16:6-7 we read, "Now
when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and
were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia"
There are two interesting things about this scripture. The first is that
it was the Holy Ghost who forbid the apostles to preach the gospel to
those who lived in Asia. Is this not discrimination? Does that mean the
Holy Ghost is a racist? But the second interesting thing is that five
chapters earlier, in Acts 11, we learn that the gospel was to be
preached to the gentiles. Then why did the Holy Ghost forbid the
apostles from preaching to those in Asia at that time? Since we know
that eventually this did happen, it becomes clear that something other
than racism is motivating these commandments. What are these other
reasons? The Bible doesn't say. Therefore, since we don't know what was
in God's mind when He gave these commandments, we're not in a position
to know if they were really racist remarks or not.
By the same standard of reasoning, Mormons didn't allow black people to
hold the priesthood because they were racists, but because they were
obeying a commandment from God. But why would God give such a
commandment? We don't fully know. Therefore it is unreasonable for us to
conclude that it was because of a racist attitude on His or our part.
It should be noted that throughout the entire history of the Mormon
church, there never was a time when the Saints had slaves -- black or
otherwise. Joseph Smith never condoned or sanctioned treating one race
of people differently than any other. In fact, he often spoke out
against slavery. This is not the attitude of a racist.
However, the curse was not meant to last forever. As such, at some point
it would have an end. Indeed, Joseph Smith clearly taught that the time
would come when blacks would be permitted to hold the priesthood. In
1978 Spencer W. Kimball, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day had a revelation concerning this issue and was told by the
Lord that the time had come for the priesthood to be given to those who
had black skin.
Were the blacks happy about this? Some weren't. When they couldn't hold
the priesthood, many blacks complained that the church leaders were
bigoted and racists. But after the revelation many of these same people
complained that the church couldn't be true because they changed one of
their basic beliefs due to public pressure. Instead of being glad to
receive the priesthood, they use the changed policy as evidence that
Mormons were admitting they had been racists. So it seems they aren't
genuinely interesting in knowing the truth. What does seem to be true is
that, no matter what Mormons do, they find fault with it.
But that's their problem. As for us, we will keep following the
commandments of God, whether others think we are racists or not.
www.massimo.bigsmart.com
To go back to The Bible and the Book of Mormon Testimonies Amazing Testimony Great Testimonies
