Posted on 08/10/2002 5:45:29 PM PDT by JMJ333
**Note: it is difficult to outline any summary of Balthasar's thought, especially given the sheer magnitude of the Trilogy (15 volumes, each of which is over--often well over--300 pages!), not to mention the many other works which serve to elucidate and expand the central themes of the Trilogy itself thus the following is a rather selective survey of the Balthasarian corpus some themes are entirely passed over and others receive only scant attention .
Let’s return, then, to the basic problem of being which Balthasar sees as fundamental to human thought and philosophy. In particular let’s consider the problem of the One and Many which he sees as solved only in the revelation of the Triune God in the person of Christ in whom the concrete and the universal are joined.
The Problem of Being
Balthasar outlines three basic approaches that non-Christian philosophies have taken to the problem of being. First, there is pagan polytheism. Balthasar sees polytheism as essentially mythical. Myth functions to bring the transcendent into contact with our concrete world, representing, therefore, the immanence of the divine within the world or of the general within the particular. But in doing this the transcendent is reduced to the finite and becomes subject to human manipulation through magic.
Christ alone is the true myth, affirming that God may indeed be known in and through the world (true immanence) and yet is also truly transcendent and utterly distinct from any created thing. The formulation of Chalcedon affirms this and furthermore t hat Christ is no mere particular but a unique totality expressed concretely.
Second, there is mystical monism. Balthasar sees the reaction against polytheism in systems which posit the existence of a Unity, a transcendent "One." A version of monism is that of Buddhism and eastern thought which see this world as esse ntially maya, an illusion, leading to suffering due the failure to fulfill illusory desire. Only by setting aside such false desire and this illusory world do we arrive at the real, at nirvana—that is, nothingness. Balthasar notes that thi s is unsatisfactory since it cannot account for the origin of the illusion or why it causes us to suffer or why we suffer if suffering itself is an illusion. Moreover, its way of "salvation" is merely a kind of spiritual euthanasia.
The other version of the One is that of neo-Platonism which follows the via negativa, ascending to God by setting aside this world and its categories. This too is unsatisfactory since in the movement of the Many into the One, we are left withou t explanation of why the Many have arisen. Also it denies its own starting point in this world in order to solve the problem of this world. We are left, therefore, with a reality that is ultimately impersonal.
Third, there is Hegelian dialectics. This too is problematic since it denies the true transcendence of God since God needs the universe in order to express Himself as truly God. If that is the case, however. then God is not God. Furthermore, in Hegelianism the individual is sublimated within the Absolute and any individuality that is possible is only by a relation to the Other, but a relation in which the Other is reduced to a means of self-realization rather than an end in itself. Finally, Hegel is cheap on human suffering and death, turning them into a mere speculative necessity for some kind of negativity within the self-realization of Absolute Spirit.
Thus the choices we are left with are atheism (in its Buddhist, Platonic, or Hegelian versions) or Christ. All of the atheisms are essentially world denying, seeking for a solution a transcendent Nothing. Even Marxism places salvation in an ever post poned future. But in Christ the various antinomies of non-Christian thought are resolved.
Christ is both the eternal Logos and the eternally elected Man. He is God in human flesh. And this reality finds its origin in the life of the Trinity in whom Father, Son, and Spirit have eternally existed. Thus Otherness and difference are not exclu ded from ultimate reality. Since the Father has eternally been with the Son, Otherness has positive value and is the condition of possibility for the creation of a world which is not merely a falling away from the One or an accident of primordial violence, but is truly real in itself. Nor is the world a necessary self-realization of God’s own Absolute Being, for the infinite "space" of love between the Father and Son is already filled by the Spirit and it is into this "space" that the world is inserted.
So it is this Triune God, revealed in Christ, that is the solution to the problem of being—being which is beautiful, good, and true.
A Preliminary Overview
With these points in mind we can turn to Balthasar’s main aesthetic contention—God is supreme Beauty, who dwells in inaccessible light and has revealed Himself, become visible, in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ. It is of the essence of Christian faith to fix our eyes upon Jesus and in Him see the glory of the Father. Balthasar points to 1 John 1:1-2:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life, the Life made manifest and which we have seen and to which we bear witness and declare to you that eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested to us…
Of course, this is for us, to a certain degree, metaphorical "sight" since the theological organ of perception is faith, not sight, and faith comes by hearing.
Along with Balthasar’s love of music and musical metaphors, this explains his emphasis on hearing the Word of God and perceiving His glory by the "eyes of faith." Faith, after all, involves surrender and hearing is the perceptual mode of surrender. S ight, on the other hand, involves dominance and distance. He writes:
The eye is the organ with which the world is possessed and dominated… Through the eye the world is our world, in which we are not lost; rather, it is subordinate to us as an immeasurable dwelling space with which we are familiar. The other side of this material function denotes distance, separateness…Hearing is a wholly different, almost opposite mode of the revelation of reality…It is not objects we hear—in the dark, when it is not possible to see—but their utterances and communications. Theref ore it is not we ourselves who determine on our part what is heard and place it before us as an object in order to turn our attention to it when it pleases us. That which is heard comes upon us without our being informed of its coming in advance. It lays hold of us without our being asked…The basic relationship between the one who hears and that which is heard is thus one of defenselessness on the one side and of communication on the other…The hearer belongs to the other and obeys him.
According Balthasar, despite the biblical emphasis on glory seen by the eyes of faith, the aesthetic dimension of theology has been gradually purged from western theology, both Protestant and Catholic. His seven-volume Herrlichkeit is an attemp t to compensate for that loss.
The first volume, Seeing the Form, defines the general scope, method, and purpose of the volumes and includes a general discussion of what Balthasar calls the "form" or "Gestalt" of the Lord Christ. Volumes two and three (which I will la rgely pass over here since they are nearly impossible to summarize) are the unfolding of historical examples of this aesthetic form as it is explicated by the early medievals (volume two: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles) and by modern poets and lay thinkers (Lay Styles; a few of whom are not "lay" at all, but did lie outside of the mainstream of the Church). Included are folks such as Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Anselm, Bonaventure (in volume two) and Dante, John of the Cross , Pascal, Hopkins, and others (in volume three). Volumes four and five undertake to examine the larger metaphysical context in which the form of Christ appeared (volume four: The Realm of Metaphysics in Antiquity) and in which it now cannot appear (volume five: The Realm of Metaphysics in the Modern Age). Some of his insights here have already been sketched in my earlier comments. Volumes six and seven deal with the theology of the Old and New Covenants, respectively, examining such issue s as their interrelation, how the New fulfills the Old, the glory of God in Old Covenant theophanies and the glory of Christ’s sufferings in the New Covenant.
Form and Faith
The fundamental idea of the aesthetics is relatively simple: in the Incarnation the very form (Gestalt) of God was definitively revealed providing a measure by which every other form is to be measured. This revelation, contrary to the practical elaboration of it in modern theology, is not merely a pointer to so mething beyond itself, but rather a manifestation of the form of Beauty itself in Christ.
But Balthasar’s aesthetics is not the subjectivism of 18th century aesthetic theory with its focus on the acts of perceiving that project one’s own interiority upon the object, leading to a beauty perceived within the self. Rather Balthasar ’s focus is on glory of the object itself apprehended by faith. For Balthasar the illumination that produces faith is itself an aesthetic act. The very object of faith itself—Jesus Christ—draws the beholder providing its own interior light. God Himself is the light by which we apprehend Him by faith.
Thus faith cannot be theorized in a narrowly intellectualistic or propositional fashion, simply as a "believing that" or as the acceptance of a set of facts. More so it involves a receptivity to the object of faith whereby one is so impressed b y it that faith necessarily ensues in obedience. Here Mary is the model in her "fiat" to God’s word—an active receptivity analogous to the receptivity of the womb.
This, in turn, raises questions as to the relation between faith and reason. Balthasar uses marital imagery, proposing that reason—womb-like—gives itself to faith to be made fruitful, not arguing itself into faith but allowing faith to come to fulfill ment within it. He rejects an apologetic approach that either, on one hand, appeals to the objectivity of historical events as pointers to divine realities or, on the other, maintains a fideistic approach that begins with human subjectivity. He writes:
For [apologetics] the heart of the matter should be the question: "How does God’s revelation confront man in history? How is it perceived?" But under the influence of a modern rationalistic concept of science, the question shifted ever more from its pr oper center to the margin, to be restated in this manner: "Here we encounter a man who claims to be God, and who, on the basis of this claim, demands that we should believe many truths he utters which cannot be verified by reason. What basis acceptable to reason can we give to his authoritative claims?" Anyone asking the question in this way has really already forfeited an answer, because he is at once enmeshed in an insoluble dilemma…Christ cannot be considered one "sign" among others…the dimmest idea of what a form is should serve as a warming against such leveling.
Jesus is the objective manifestation of God but reason, on its own, cannot see this, according to Baltahsar. God’s grace is necessary and by it reason is drawn into faith wherein it can see what is objectively there to be seen—that is, the revelation of God. Seeing and believing are complementary.
To put it another way, reason is necessary to seeing, but for the revelation to be truly seen, the revelation itself must enlighten the viewer to itself by grace. So faith is not merely subjective since it is not the believer who makes a leap, but ins tead it is the object of faith that draws the believer to Himself by His form of beauty.
According to Balthasar the experience of faith and the assurance or certainty of salvation (especially as that was posed by Luther) are closely related. While faith is something that is experienced, it is not the experience of faith itself in an intro spective and experiential fashion that gives assurance. Rather by faith we know Christ and the power of His resurrection and press on to the goal—it is in the receptive movement of faith towards its object that assurance is possessed, but this is a moveme nt that turns away from the self, towards Christ, and is grasped by Him.
Another emphasis of Balthasar is the materiality of Christian faith. It is not a pure mysticism or non-physical thing since God is revealed in the cosmos and, ultimately, in the Incarnation. He even maintains that in the eschaton the Beatific Vision will be mediated through the humanity of Christ. Moreover, while our awareness of God in the creation has been marred by sin, in Christ it is possible to begin to restore the materiality of God’s presence. This is seen foremost in the actions of the sacr aments by which Christ makes Himself present, in a sexuality that is transformed from egoistic self-gratification into self-offering love, and in the self-sacrificial love for the neighbor in deeds of service.
It follows from Balthasar’s emphasis on the materiality of faith that the mystical contemplation of God (the awareness of His presence) is inextricably tied to a life of activity. It must leave behind any world-denying Platonistic notions in favor a G od who is active in history culminating in the paschal mystery of Christ. So Bultmann’s demythologization is a gnostic attempt separate faith from history which ends up positing a transcendence that reintroduces the very mythological assumptions that the Incarnation had put to rest.
Balthasar goes on to examine the specific form that the beautiful revelation of God takes in Christ. Jesus demands faith in Himself as the historical form of the eternal God, who in His divinity has universal significance and who, in His humanity, is conditioned by historical contingency. Nevertheless, Christ is the express image of the Father, revealing the very form of the Trinitarian life of God in contrast to all religions which posit God as a formless One.
The work of Christ, says Balthasar, is the living exegesis of the Father since Christ’s existence as Son consists in His obedience at every moment actualizing the immediate will of the Father. Moreover, Christ draws us into this work by union with Him . He writes:
By his prayer and his suffering the Son brings his disciples—and through them, all mankind—into the interior space of the Trinity.
This form of God, though within time and history, is the utterly unique measure of relationship between God and man. Yet merely empirical and purportedly neutral scientific methods, with their suspension of judgment, cannot see this form for what it i s. That is only possible with the eyes of faith and an openness to the obedience the form demands from faith.
Old and New Covenant
In the final two volumes of the aesthetics Balthasar examines the definitive revelation of beauty—the glory of God revealed in Christ—as that is authoritatively given to us in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The work of God as Creator is fulfilled in the work of God as Redeemer and so it is the creation itself which becomes of the means of God’s redemptive revelation. Human language, thought, actions, and the like are the very forms of God’s sel f-expression to us and so the form of revelation and the act of revelation are not to be separated.
According to Balthasar the Hebrew Scriptures in themselves are a puzzle, a promise pointing to a future that has not yet arrived. It is only in the light of the revelation in Christ that the OT makes sense. He writes:
The essential point is that Israel as a whole and existentially is an image and figure which cannot interpret itself.
The Old Testament poses the following problem: on one hand, God, who is faithful to His Word, the very Word by which the world was made, has called a people to Himself by mighty acts manifesting His glory. On the other hand, how can God remain faithfu l to His word in light of His glorious holiness when His people keep breaking the covenant He has established?
This Old Testament covenantal dynamic is seen in the increasing participation of Israel in the sphere of divine holiness (e.g., consider the 70 elders in the Pentateuch in contrast to Zechariah’s vision of the outpoured Spirit). At the same time, howe ver, the mighty acts of God, the evidence of the presence of His glory, become increasingly less prominent and more concealed (e.g., consider the deliverance of Israel in the Exodus as opposed to that which God worked through Esther). God presents Himsel f as ever more incomprehensible, yet, paradoxically, Israel is never surer of her God than when she seems to be forsaken by Him in exile.
The Old Testament leaves off with a fragmentary picture without any form by which the fragments may be brought together. Only with the revelation of Christ is a form given by which the Old Testament may be understood. Balthasar writes:
The individual forms which Israel established in the course of her history converge together upon a point that remains open and that cannot be calculated ahead of time on their basis of their convergence or their mutual relationship, especially since t hey stand in opposition to one another so often.
The revelation of Christ, therefore, is a manifestation of God’s glory that can embrace even the seemingly contradictory fragments of the Old Testament and this glory was ultimately revealed in Christ’s obedience even unto death on a Cross, in the ingl orious form of a slave. The power of God was manifest in powerlessness. This revelation is totally unexpected, beyond what could possibly be imagined.
First, however, is Christ’s claim for Himself not as One who merely points to a way to God but who is Himself the Way. Jesus brings people to crisis by His authority, by forcing the issue of the people’s acceptance or rejection of Him. His pre sence and questions make others transparent to themselves for this is the presence of One who is transparent to Himself. Jesus is therefore announcing Himself as God’s definitive Word.
In contrast to His authority, however, Jesus is also the one who became poor for our sakes and this theme of poverty can be seen in relation to three areas: prayer, the Holy Spirit, and faith. In regard to prayer we see Jesus offering Himself up to th e Father in Gethsemane. But in the "Our Father" that is given to us to pray we also have a similar model of humility before God and complete reliance upon Him (consider the petitions).
Jesus is also supremely gifted with the Spirit by whom He was conceived, who descended upon His in baptism, and so on. Yet Jesus not so much possesses the Spirit, but rather yields completely to the Spirit to be possessed by Him—from being driv en into the desert of temptation to finally offering Himself to God upon the cross through the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14). By this total surrender to the Spirit He is able to give that same Spirit to us.
Balthasar, interestingly, also presents Jesus as a Man of faith—one who surrenders Himself to God in trusting perseverance, not by His own initiative, but in response to the prior faithfulness of the Father who, in grace, had chosen Him. Thereby Jesus is the "pioneer and perfecter of faith" (Heb 12:2), fulfilling the faith of Abraham even to the faithful obedience of the Cross, where, forsaken of God, He could only live by faith and not by sight. Jesus, therefore, is not merely a model of faith, but by our Baptism we are engrafted into the very faithfulness of Christ—Jesus believes in us so that we too believe and, in the work of faith, like Him, surrender ourselves to the Father.
Above all, however, it is the Johannine vision of Christ that most intrigues Balthasar: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). But fo r John, the cross and the glorification of Christ are inseparable realities—coming from the Father, the Son’s whole life is one of glorifying the Father through obedience moving relentlessly toward his "hour" of glorification in powerlessness upon the Cross.
It is in the formless, the deformity (Ungestalt), of the Cross that the very form of God’s glory (Ubergestalt) is revealed as the boundless, self-giving love that characterizes the very life of the Trinity. This form of glory unseats all worldly aesthetics and all classical notions of beauty as proportion and harmony, making way for a new theological understanding of beauty in the Trinitarian dynamic of cruciform love seen by the eyes of faith. And that is the fundamental point that Bal thasar expresses in his aesthetics.
Cubicle, if there's a point to be made somewhere in your #416, I can't figure out what it is.
Can you answer my questions in #420? They are very simple questions. If you can't answer them then you should be able to deduce some kind of point out of my #420.
Frankly I don't think you CAN answer them. Am I wrong?
I am doing a search and not feeling well so bear with me in this heat!
Now that Cain killed Able. Able did not have any posterity, because ABLE (seed) was also terminated.
So I remember the reading something about the reason for skin color is because their seeds were not to mixed.
At certain times the Lord was had convenants with different tribes and they fell out of grace from the Lord so he made it so those who still had the Lord's blessing were not to mixed their seed, or the convenant was broken and null and void.
Each race had to work out their problem to get back into the good graces of the Lord and if we are honest all of the races have been convenant breakers.
More to come.....
Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 2 Smith, Joseph Fielding \ Doctrinal \ LDS Classics \ Teachings of the Prophets Apostle \ LDS Classics \ Teachings of the Prophets \ Doctrinal
173The Descendants of Cain
173Question: "My study of the scriptures has resulted in some 'unorthodox' conclusions, about which, if untenable, I should like to be put right with respect to the following: 173"1. The black race comes through only one of Ham's sons—Canaan.
173"2. The people known as Egyptians are not cursed with a black skin but have received another curse barring them from the priesthood. Egyptus was not a black woman.
173"3. Negroes are not precluded from holding the priesthood. I call attention to "2 Ne. 5:21II Nephi 5:21. 173"4. The curse pronounced by Noah on Pharaoh 'pertaining to the priesthood' was not because of the color of his skin. The first Pharaoh established an imitation patriarchal order of government patterned after the patriarchal reign of Adam, and also Noah. He could not have that 'right of priesthood' that is, the right of the patriarchal order, because he was not of the proper lineage. The right of that order was conferred upon Shem, the rightful heir."
173Answer: In the study of the scriptures, and especially these of a very ancient date, the first consideration is to discover that we have received such a meager record covering centuries of time. From Adam to Abraham is about 2000 years, yet it is all recorded in some twelve or fourteen pages. This history is, therefore, at best only a synopsis and most of the vital things are not even mentioned. Then again, this record has come down to us through manuscripts, many times copied and many times translated so that much of the "plain and precious" parts have been eliminated or changed. If we had the record in its purity and fulness as it was originally given, all of these obscure matters would be cleared.
174THE PATRIARCHAL PRIESTHOOD
174It is not expedient to go into this matter in the fulness which, perhaps, the subject demands, but here are a few reflections which may not have been considered. It is true that the patriarchal priesthood was handed down from father to son, and that the keys of it belonged to the oldest son by right of primogeniture; but notwithstanding this, all of the faithful men who obtained the priesthood had this patriarchal office from the days of Adam down to the days of Moses. This order of the priesthood was the one conferred upon these ancient prophets and teachers, whether they were the first-born or the last born, if they were faithful.
174Your attention is called to the fact that if this priesthood was the right of the first-born only, then the right would have been vested in Japheth, not Shem, after the flood, for Japheth was older than Shem. It could not be, then, on the ground of primogeniture that the descendants of Ham were denied the patriarchal priesthood. If this order was to be followed down to Moses, then Moses should not have been called to lead Israel, for he was of the tribe of Levi. Then again, we should remember that Moses got his priesthood from Jethro, who was not a descendant of Israel, but of Abraham through a younger branch of his family.
175BLACK SKIN WAS NOT THE CURSE
175The next question: "Was Cain cursed with a black skin?" Technically the black skin was not the curse, but the mark of the curse. The scriptures do not say that Cain was made black, but we read that his descendants were. ("Moses 7:22Moses 7:22.) We may well suppose that Cain was also black and that this was the mark the Lord placed upon him. ("Gen. 4:15Genesis 4:15.)
175The question also arises: "Why was it that Enoch and others of the prophets before the flood, avoided preaching the gospel to the descendants of Cain?" ("Moses 7:8Moses 7:8, "Moses 7:1212.)
175We learn that Noah was 450 years old when Japheth was born, and he was 492 when Shem was born, and Ham was born eight years later. Noah was a righteous man, and therefore we must conclude that he followed the admonition of the Lord to multiply. We reach the conclusion then, that Noah had numerous sons and daughters, but only three of his sons and their wives had faith enough to follow Noah into the Ark. What of the others? We get some light from the Pearl of Great Price:
175And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice. (Ibid., 8:15.)
176THE SEED OF CAIN HAD TO BE PRESERVED
176Could it not be said of Ham that he was righteous in that he followed his father into the Ark? The seed of Cain had to be preserved, and Cain was chosen for that mission. It is very possible that Ham received his name due to the fact that he married a black woman. We learn that the names of many individuals in those early years were given them—and often changed—due to incidents which occurred in their lives. For example, Esau's name was changed to Edom, and Jacob's name to Israel, and Abraham was at first known as Abram. It is likely that Ham's name was changed because he had a black wife, for ham is an adjective in Egyptian for black. The name Egyptus means forbidden. ("Abr. 1:23Abraham 1:23.) Is it not reasonable to believe that this has reference to the fact that her descendants, as well as her ancestors, were denied some great blessing? And that that great blessing was denial of the priesthood?
176We are informed that the right to the priesthood was denied Pharaoh, and this is in full accord with the attitude of Enoch and others before the flood. Then is it not reasonable to think that Ham named one of his sons Caanan after Cain? We may not be justified in declaring that the daughters of Ham were fair before the flood. We have no evidence that Ham had either sons or daughters before the flood. We have no evidence that it was the sons and daughters of any of the sons who entered the Ark who received the condemnation of the Lord. It could have been sons and daughters of other sons who refused to hearken to their father, and to the sons who rebelled, there may have been daughters who were fair. In fact, this is the plain implication of the scriptures.
177SIGNIFICANT EXPRESSIONS OF SCRIPTURE
177Reference that the "blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land," and thus from Ham sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land are significant expressions. Again we read: "Now, Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have right to the priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah through Ham," is also significant. (Ibid., 1:27.) Is it not possible also that the Lord did curse the land so that it did not produce in its strength to Cain; and is it not possible that the Lord could have modified this in the case of some of Cain's descendants wherein they showed some measure of righteousness? (Ibid., 1:26.)
177It is true that the Negro race in their native land occupy lands of much heat, as well as they did before the flood, but such discussion does not aid us much in the matter of the curse placed on Cain and his posterity. In regard to this we should be satisfied with what the Lord has revealed in relation to Cain and his posterity. The Pearl of Great Price tells us definitely that the Egyptians were denied the priesthood. The Prophet taught his brethren that Cain was denied the priesthood and his posterity also to the latest generations. The promise was given that this curse, or restriction, will be removed, when the time comes in some future sphere, when Abel will have posterity. This evidence is collected and published in The Way to Perfection, chapters 15 and 16.
178Fortunately for the Negro, he is not denied entrance into the Church. He may be baptized for the remission of his sins and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and if true and faithful to the end, he may enter the celestial kingdom. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds out more for the Negro than any other religious denomination. Salvation in the Kingdom of God is open to him, with the promise that in the due time of the Lord, if he receives the gospel, all restrictions will be removed. We have in the Church many good, honest, faithful Negroes who fully understand.
178EVERY SPIRIT INNOCENT IN THE BEGINNING
178We are taught that every spirit was innocent in the beginning in the spirit world. It is equally true that every spirit comes into this world innocent as far as sin in this world is concerned. It is one of the most abominable, cruel and unreasonable doctrines that Satan ever introduced into this world to lay at the door of innocent, helpless babies, a sin which they never committed. Jesus Christ paid the debt for "original sin," or the bringing of death into the world. No other soul ever born, or that may yet be born, will be charged with any taint because of Adam's Fall. Jesus Christ came and paid that debt, and the sprinkling or touching the body of a baby with water to cleanse it from original sin, and to condemn it to "limbo," and deny it the mercies of the Lord if it is not so touched or sprinkled, comes close to being an unforgivable sin. Spirits who have received the privilege of coming to this earth had their agency in that spirit world. Some of them failed because of rebellion and were cast out with Lucifer. Others were not valiant and therefore came into this world under some restriction, and the Lord deals with them according to their works.
Next 4
The saddest story indeed. Because that story paints the Mormon god as a racist bigot.
I remember the reading something about the reason for skin color is because their seeds were not to mixed.
So god doesn't want black people to intermarry with white and delightsome people? Huh? What a bigot!
I am glad the God of the Bible is not such a bigot.
In fact when Moses married a black woman, (yes, he did) his brother and sister were all upset with him. They spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman that he had married.
And what did God do????? Did God punish Moses for mixing his seed with the black race????? No!!!!!
He cursed Miriam with a skin disease which made her skin as white as snow!!!
I think God has a sense of irony. Because Miriam and Aaron were bigots and were judging Moses because of the fact that he had married a black woman, he turned Miriam as white as snow!
So the only known case of a curse from God changing the color of a person's skin was when God punished a bigot by turning her skin as white as snow.
Check it out. Numbers Chapter 12. It is one of the most ironic stories in the Bible. The moral of the story is, don't judge people by the color of their skin. God doesn't. The one true God doesn't. And God doesn't like it when people do.
Antiquities of the Jews Josephus, Flavius \ World Classics Non-LDS \ World History \ Religion Chapter 6
HOW EVERY NATION WAS DENOMINATED FROM THEIR FIRST INHABITANTS
1. Now they were the grandchildren of Noah, in honor of whom names were imposed on the nations by those that first seized upon them. Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tansis, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names. For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites. Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians. Now as to Javan and Madai, the sons of Japhet; from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks; but from Javan, Ionia, and all the Grecians, are derived. Thobel founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes; and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch; now they are Cappadocians. There is also a mark of their ancient denomination still to be shown; for there is even now among them a city called Mazaca, which may inform those that are able to understand, that so was the entire nation once called. Thiras also called those whom he ruled over Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians. And so many were the countries that had the children of Japhet for their inhabitants. Of the three sons of Gomer, Aschanax founded the Aschanaxians, who are now called by the Greeks Rheginians. So did Riphath found the Ripheans, now called Paphlagonians; and Thrugramma the Thrugrammeans, who, as the Greeks resolved, were named Phrygians. Of the three sons of Javan also, the son of Japhet, Elisa gave name to the Eliseans, who were his subjects; they are now the Aeolians. Tharsus to the Tharsians, for so was Cilicia of old called; the sign of which is this, that the noblest city they have, and a metropolis also, is Tarsus, the tau being by change put for the theta. Cethimus possessed the island Cethima: it is now called Cyprus; and from that it is that all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews: and one city there is in Cyprus that has been able to preserve its denomination; it has been called Citius by those who use the language of the Greeks, and has not, by the use of that dialect, escaped the name of Cethim. And so many nations have the children and grandchildren of Japhet possessed. Now when I have premised somewhat, which perhaps the Greeks do not know, I will return and explain what I have omitted; for such names are pronounced here after the manner of the Greeks, to please my readers; for our own country language does not so pronounce them: but the names in all cases are of one and the same ending; for the name we here pronounce Noeas, is there Noah, and in every case retains the same termination.
2. The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are which have kept their denominations entire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites. The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestreans. Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the apellation of Phut: but the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mesraim, who was called Lybyos. We will inform you presently what has been the occasion why it has been called Africa also. Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan. The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans; Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: but Nimrod, the son of Chus, staid and tyrannized at Babylon, as we have already informed you. Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. As for the rest, Ludieim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cephthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown. The sons of Canaan were these: Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name; it is called by the Greeks Sidon Amathus inhabited in Amathine, which is even now called Amathe by the inhabitants, although the Macedonians named it Epiphania, from one of his posterity: Arudeus possessed the island Aradus: Arucas possessed Arce, which is in Libanus. But for the seven others, [Eueus,] Chetteus, Jebuseus, Amorreus, Gergesus, Eudeus, Sineus, Samareus, we have nothing in the sacred books but their names, for the Hebrews overthrew their cities; and their calamities came upon them on the occasion following.
3. Noah, when, after the deluge, the earth was resettled in its former condition, set about its cultivation; and when he had planted it with vines, and when the fruit was ripe, and he had gathered the grapes in their season, and the wine was ready for use, he offered sacrifice, and feasted, and, being drunk, he fell asleep, and lay naked in an unseemly manner. When his youngest son saw this, he came laughing, and showed him to his brethren; but they covered their father's nakedness. And when Noah was made sensible of what had been done, he prayed for prosperity to his other sons; but for Ham, he did not curse him, by reason of his nearness in blood, but cursed his prosperity: and when the rest of them escaped that curse, God inflicted it on the children of Canaan. But as to these matters, we shall speak more hereafter.
4. Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians. Ashur lived at the city Nineve; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others. Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans. Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians; as Laud founded the Laudites, which are now called Lydians. Of the four sons of Aram, Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus: this country lies between Palestine and Celesyria. Ul founded Armenia; and Gather the Bactrians; and Mesa the Mesaneans; it is now called Charax Spasini. Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews. Heber begat Joetan and Phaleg: he was called Phaleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their several countries; for Phaleg among the Hebrews signifies division. Now Joctan, one of the sons of Heber, had these sons, Elmodad, Saleph, Asermoth, Jera, Adoram, Aizel, Decla, Ebal, Abimael, Sabeus, Ophir, Euilat, and Jobab. These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river, and in part of Asia adjoining to it. And this shall suffice concerning the sons of Shem.
5. I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Phaleg, whose father Was Heber, was Ragau; whose son was Serug, to whom was born Nahor; his son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge; for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year. Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge. Now Abram had two brethren, Nahor and Haran: of these Haran left a son, Lot; as also Sarai and Milcha his daughters; and died among the Chaldeans, in a city of the Chaldeans, called Ur; and his monument is shown to this day. These married their nieces. Nabor married Milcha, and Abram married Sarai. Now Terah hating Chaldea, on account of his mourning for Ilaran, they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia, where Terah died, and was buried, when he had lived to be two hundred and five years old; for the life of man was already, by degrees, diminished, and became shorter than before, till the birth of Moses; after whom the term of human life was one hundred and twenty years, God determining it to the length that Moses happened to live. Now Nahor had eight sons by Milcha; Uz and Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph, and Bethuel. These were all the genuine sons of Nahor; for Teba, and Gaam, and Tachas, and Maaca, were born of Reuma his concubine: but Bethuel had a daughter, Rebecca, and a son, Laban.
This is interesting. I noticed nothing required as to the nature of God
Could one believe in the traditional trinity? Or that God the father is a spirit? Or is that folded into the required belief by virtue of believeing thjat JS was a prophet?
******
SEE WHAT HAPPEN TO MY OLIVED BRANCH ~ OUCH!
I am afraid my post #426 is going to get lost in this tirade, I don't like unplesantness I try to have a search and understanding discussion. There is no need to bash one or their faith! These tantrum are hard to take and I am not feeling well. I think a responce like that was uncalled for, I was sincere in my efforts to find understanding. I know the LDS has never been a racist Church and understood things from a Biblical since, not as the world dictates in its ignorance. Don't mean you R7
176Could it not be said of Ham that he was righteous in that he followed his father into the Ark? The seed of Cain had to be preserved, and Cain was chosen for that mission. It is very possible that Ham received his name due to the fact that he married a black woman. We learn that the names of many individuals in those early years were given them—and often changed—due to incidents which occurred in their lives. For example, Esau's name was changed to Edom, and Jacob's name to Israel, and Abraham was at first known as Abram. It is likely that Ham's name was changed because he had a black wife, for ham is an adjective in Egyptian for black. The name Egyptus means forbidden. ("Abr. 1:23Abraham 1:23.) Is it not reasonable to believe that this has reference to the fact that her descendants, as well as her ancestors, were denied some great blessing? And that that great blessing was denial of the priesthood?
176We are informed that the right to the priesthood was denied Pharaoh, and this is in full accord with the attitude of Enoch and others before the flood. Then is it not reasonable to think that Ham named one of his sons Caanan after Cain? We may not be justified in declaring that the daughters of Ham were fair before the flood. We have no evidence that Ham had either sons or daughters before the flood. We have no evidence that it was the sons and daughters of any of the sons who entered the Ark who received the condemnation of the Lord. It could have been sons and daughters of other sons who refused to hearken to their father, and to the sons who rebelled, there may have been daughters who were fair. In fact, this is the plain implication of the scriptures.
Amen Marlowe..God is NOT a respector of persons..He looks on the heart..
Here we have yet another hijacked trashing and bashing thread that has gone on for days. P-Marlowe is not a Calvinist, but he is leading the bashing this time just like the aggressive Calvinists do, going on and on and on, not knowing when to stop, bashing with racist accusations. In the last thread, now pulled, drstevej, who is a Calvinist, went on and on and on, not knowing when to stop, bashing with sexist accusations, and he is joining in here too, see for example #343 and #439 just above.
When a conservative commentator is doing a great job of being colorblind, but the liberal activist keeps injecting race into the "discussion" in order to imply that conservatives are racist, who is really the racist?
It does no good to reply to them. They just ignore our solid, thorough, and thoughtful reasoning, accuse us of whining, and continue with their bashing. There are people like that in this world, and they try to take over whatever forum will allow it. If we did not reply, they would claim victory, boast of driving us from the field, and backbite us endlessly. If they persuade us to descend to their level (and they succeed in part with some of us occasionally) then the moderators cannot distinguish the predators from their intended victims.
Predatory attackers will not stop until they are banned. They are like crows who take over tree after tree, driving the songbirds away. The Smoky Backroom forum is not intended for one-sided predatory situations like these.
It is past time to pull this thread. The Admin Moderator has already posted one warning. But if these guys are not banned, they will just do it again and again, hijacking thread after thread, bashing and trashing.
I don't spend the time I should in the News forum, because these attackers soak up so much of my available FR time demanding well-researched answers to their "questions" (and then throw them away as though I had not replied).
I am sorry to burden you with this, but the forum rules are not being enforced well enough. People's reputations are being trashed, and our replies and calls for better behavior ignored by the attackers. Too much predatory behavior is getting in under the radar, since the individual posts are not sufficiently egregious, I guess. Where the police are not sufficiently vigilant, the Mafia muscles in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.