- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wordsleuth, I’ve read RSR (Bushman), Insider’s view of Mormon Origins (Palmer), and Origins of Power (Quinn.) Perhaps I’ve read the wrong Quinn as my book dealt very little with race–it was dedicated to priesthood. Don’t you think that some of the early Jewish and Christian quotes pre-date Smith and show some racism?
Jewish opinionsThe Curse of Ham refers to Genesis 9:20-27, where Noah curses Ham and his son Canaan, and says “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Early Jewish commentators said Ham was smitten in his skin.” {Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b} The nature of Ham’s “smitten” skin is unexplained, but
later commentaries described this as a darkening of skin. A later note to the text states that the “smitten” skin referred to the blackness of descendants, and a later comment by rabbis in the Bereshit Rabbah asserts that Ham himself emerged from the ark black-skinned. This is documented by Werner Solors in his book Neither Black nor White Yet Both: Thematic Explorations of Interracial Literature, 1997, Oxford University Press, p. 87, as well as the Midrash (see http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/mhl/mhl05.htm Christian opinionsMany pre-modern Christian sources discuss the curse of Ham in connection with race and slavery:
Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “
For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterityimitate the ignobility of the race.” Homilies on Genesis 16.1 “Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘
Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.” Paul de Lagarde, (Leipzig, 1867), part II The Eastern Christian work, the Cave of Treasures (4th century), explicitly connects slavery with dark-skinned people: “When Noah awoke. . .he cursed him and said: ‘Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers’. . .and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed,
Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever.” Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 526-27, Scriptores Iberici 23-24 (Louvain, 1992-93), ch. 21, 38-39. Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, 9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .
his face and entire body became black. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.” C. Van Den Eynde, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 156, Scriptores Syri 75 (Louvain, 1955), p. 139. Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “
Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.” J.P. Migne (Paris, 1857-66), Pococke’s (1658-59) translation of the Annales, 111.917B (sec. 41-43) Ibn al-Tayyib (Arabic Christian scholar, Baghdad, d. 1043): “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse,
Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them.” Joannes C.J. Sanders, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 274-275, Scriptores Arabici 24-25 (Louvain, 1967), 1:56 (text). Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and
with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40–41, to Gen 9:22. See also: Phillip Mayerson, “Anti-Black Sentiment in the Vitae Patrum”, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 71, 1978, pp. 304–311.
According to Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, “I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter
like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang”How is this uniquely Joseph Smith’s form of racism? How is Joseph’s form different?
Ray, MH, great points! OK, another beam in my eye. The Book of Mormong repeatedly refers to synagogues. Synagogues, to my understanding, only came into existence as a result of the diaspora, well after Lehi’s time. Any thoughts about why the use of the term in the Book of Mormon? Sure. It was the word Joseph knew to use for a place where Jews and those of that culture met. It’s probably the only word in his vocabulary that corresponds to that concept. Iow, there probably wasn’t any other choice for him.
Given his own description of the transmission process, when his available vocabulary is taken into consideration, many of these issues disappear for me.
However, given the statements of others about the translation process (e.g. that he read the exact translation off of a stone), and the fact that the BOM manuscripts support the oral transmission of directly read statements, it makes some of these issues much more difficult . . . SilentStruggle, you’re right about synagogues, and I have to agree with Ray on this point. I don’t know if you saw my post on Mormon Matters about Scriptural Literalism, but I will once again claim to be a non-literalist on this point. Joseph used the word synagogue because that is the word he was familiar with–it may not have been the best word to describe worship services in BoM times. I appreciate the viewpoints as always. In retrospect, what other words could he have used? Mosque? Nah. Church? Well, that only came into being after Christ, so no.
I think the mote is out of my eye.
Since this thread is on questions about the BoM, does anyone else have problems reading all that depressing war stuff? I seem to only get so far in reading it and when the constant war stuff starts, I just get too depressed. Why do you think all this war stuff was put in there? Well, since I’m one of those wacky old historicity-believing types, I think the war stuff is there….well….because that’s the records the writers chose to keep. For those who view the BoM as something different, I’m not sure why the moral lessons and records would be war-oriented unless it’s just to illustrate peoples/societies” violent natures when they start being secular.
I can’t say I’m a real fan of all the gory war details either. Why is it there? Well, since Mormon was a war leader, I’m sure it appealed to him, and he is the editor. I don’t know if you’ll find his website interesting or not, but there is a guy by the name of Morgan Deane who is a college teacher. He got his MS in Military History, or something like that. He is an expert in Napoleanic and Oriental warfare, and has a blog dedicated to Warfare and the Book of Mormon. It is definitely a faithful perspective. Sometimes he gets really technical. Perhaps you could ask him? His website is
http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/ Thanks Bruce and MH. Well, all the war stuff makes it the least desirable for me to read besides all the “It came to pass’ stuff. I always like the D& C best because it was more all time and speaking directly to people which I could relate to. I just checked Morgan’s site and he has a post about the spiritual lessons of war in the BoM. Check it out. Hi Bridget I think MH is right since Mormon was a general it is likely that he thought we would all be interested in what he was interested in. On a larger level however there is a lot of “incidental” information in the war stories that help us to understand Nephite society. The war stories by and large are one of the main means that Sorenson was able to scope out a limited geography for the Book of Mormon taking care to see just how long it took the armies to march from place to place and then where the key points were to defend (these are usually key passes through mountains or very dense junge, water crossings etc. )
On a thematic level Mormon as editor is constantly pushing the idea that if you are righteous things go well, if you sin then one of the results will eventually be war.
JS and OC both believed that the Book of Mormon story took place, in at least its final denouement, in and around the Hill Commurah in upstate New York. This is clear from the “history” of the church published in several installments in the church’s own publication Times and Seasons between 1834-1835. If JS was a prophet of God, charged with the mission that LDS ascribe to him, how is it possible he got it wrong? It makes no sense. And if it asks us who have come after to make up incredible stories about how maybe the landing of Nephi’s family took place in Asia, then it would appear to be an attempt to pull a rabbit out of a hat. How can anyone except JS as a modern prophet and believe he was so naive about the very thing he was called to do? You’re all grasping at straws, if you believe such nonsense. curt, fwiw, I think the fact that Joseph appears not to have understood the book much is a decent testimony that he wasn’t the author. I have NO problem with him being mistaken about the geography. That has been addressed already in this thread at length in earlier comments. Also, please be careful of the tone and wording of your comments. This is two or three in a row where you have edged around calling us idiots for very reasonable perspectives – ones with which you disagree, but ones that actually are reasonable. This is not the forum to be making fun of others, even where we disagree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.