theplains Posted August 3 Posted August 3 No questions herein, just observations... Here's another gospel "truth" once taught by the LDS Church. It should be worth noting that skin color is not depicted as reflecting only one's spiritual state. It echoes what former President Spencer W. Kimball taught in the 1960 General Conference. There is also a preoccupation with "blood". Supposedly the Indians contain a "purer strain of Israelitish blood than many members of the Church" even though the LDS Church teaches some who are acted upon by the Holy Ghost have their blood changed into the literal blood of Abraham. (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual).. Here is the exact quote: "... for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost". Before examining the "red men" teaching, let's look at what Spencer Kimball said: "The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter we represent, the little member girl, sixteen, sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather .... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness" Here is the gospel "truth" I was alluding to earlier about the "red men": FUTURE FATE OF THE RED MAN. Improbable as it may seem, it is nevertheless true that the Indians are not destined to be crowded off the face of the land by the whites; neither will the whites ever witness their utter extermination. In ancient days the Lord made covenants with various individuals in relation to their descendants-that he would bless them, etc., and would not suffer them to perish from the face of the earth, but would remember them in the last days, and would reveal unto them the abun-dance of peace and truth.... The Book of Mormon, the record containing the ancient history of America, plainly states that the Lord did also make such a covenant with the ancestors of the present American Indians, and with other holy men who formerly inhabited this continent ... Instead, therefore, of there being any likelihood of the Indians being exterminated, or meeting the fate many imagine to be inevitable, there is much more danger that the whites themselves will be the people who will experience this fate, or something approximating thereto. The only way they can avoid it is by receiving and obeying the fullness of the Gospel. Yet, this they as a nation have rejected. (December 13, 1856, WS 270-71) INDIANS RECEPTIVE TO GOSPEL. Strange to say—if anything can be said to be strange connected with the work of God-the descendants of those ancient covenant people of the Lord have gladly received the testimony of the servants of God. Wherever we have gone and mingled with those people, with those Red Men, and been able to communicate to them the truths of which we are in possession, which God has revealed to us, they have received the same gladly, not only upon this continent but upon the islands of the sea; ... everywhere where those men with red skins dwell, they have gladly received the testimony of God's servants concerning the Gospel, and they rejoice in its fullness and in the knowledge that their fathers once possessed and of the redemption that Jesus Christ has wrought out for them. Most wonderful has this prediction been fulfilled in this respect. (April 6, 1884, JD 25:123-24) THE INDIANS TO BUILD NEW JERUSALEM. The Latter-day Saints should remember who these red men are and the predictions which have been made concerning them. They are our brethren, being of the house of Israel and containing a purer strain of Israelitish blood than many members of the Church. It has been predicted, and the word of the Lord will no more fail in this respect than in any other, that they will yet become a white and delightsome people, possessed of a very high degree of cultivation. They are to build the New Jerusalem, and we, who are of the Gentile nations, are to assist them in the work. The prospect of such a condition of things may humble our pride, but we may as well look squarely at the destiny which is before [them]... in the due time of the Lord they will be redeemed.... (February 1, 1895, JI 30:75-76) President George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, volume 2, chapter 8, pages 97-98.
smac97 Posted August 3 Posted August 3 4 hours ago, theplains said: No questions herein, just observations... Here's another gospel "truth" once taught by the LDS Church. Okay. Let's take a look. 4 hours ago, theplains said: It should be worth noting that skin color is not depicted as reflecting only one's spiritual state. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify? 4 hours ago, theplains said: It echoes what former President Spencer W. Kimball taught in the 1960 General Conference. I assume you are referring to then-Elder Kimball's address starting on page 32. Am I correct about that? Here is the text of his address: Quote ELDER SPENCER W. KIMBALL Some years ago I attended a conference of missionaries in a little Arizona town which the nearby Indians gave an Indian name signifying "the place where the people prayed." That was Joseph City. A month ago I had the privilege of going into the mission field in the Southwest Indian Mission, and in another city which could well have been named by the Indians "the city of hospitality," we held a conference of the missionaries, and this city was Snowflake. The missionaries of the Southwest Indian Mission told of their labors among the Indians, and perhaps this is one of the most foreign of all foreign missions, and is in a land of strange tongues and colorful people, a place of high mountain coolness and near sea level desert heat— a land where a new amalgamation of peoples and kindreds is taking place, and where the gospel of Jesus Christ is neutralizing the centuries of dwindling unbelief. I found evidence of waning superstition and of growing faith in the gospel. I saw people who have for centuries been as chaff before the wind settling down to industry and security and permanence — a people who for more than a millennium have been "as a vessel . . . tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her. . . ." (Mormon 5:18.) I saw them beginning to accept the gospel of Christ. I saw them reclaiming their forfeited blessings which the Lord reserved ". . . for the gentiles who shall possess the land." (Ibid., 5:19.) I saw acceleration in their progress and the time is at hand when the Lord will ". . . remember the covenant which he made with Abraham and unto all the house of Israel." (Ibid., 5:20.) ". . . and as the Lord liveth he will remember the covenant which he hath made with them. And he knoweth their prayers. . . ." (Ibid., 8:23-24.) The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. In this mission alone there are 8400-plus members of the Church. As I visited this area fifteen years ago, there were ninety-four. "Are they faithful?" I am asked. And the answer is, "Not all of them. They are just about like their white cousins in the stakes of Zion." "Are they making headway?" And the answer is, "Yes. Perhaps relatively greater headway than we ourselves." Indians are people, and the longer I serve with them the more I realize that they respond to the same teaching and kindness and love as others do. They have the same emotions. Some can be godless, but most of them are religious. I found that faith is a basic element in their lives. I learned of a Navajo couple who rushed their baby to the mission home for a blessing — It was livid white, seemed to be dead. It was soon well and playing around — and the Indian woman who lost her hearing, who received it back through the administration of the young missionaries; or the elder whose Navajo mother asked him if he had faith in Heavenly Father when the little brother was lying desperately ill, and whose little brother was wholly well the next morning after he himself had hid in a closet and prayed for his brother. Yes, the Indians have faith — a rather simple, pure, and unadulterated faith, as evidenced by the Indian mother who asked the elders to come to the hospital to bless her sick child. The next day the elders called at her home and asked, "How is the little boy?" And she rejoined, "Oh, he's all right," in a tone such as to say, "Well, you blessed him, didn't you? Of course he's well." And another Indian whose hands were badly burned was in excruciating pain. The administration brought almost immediate relief, and she was using her hands in a day or two. There was the Indian family who pleaded with the elders to pray for rain for their crops and for the grass and for the cattle and the sheep. "But please be careful," they warned. "The last time the elders prayed for rain, it came too hard, and the sheep corrals were washed out and some of the sheep were drowned." There was the Hopi elder in a Phoenix hospital with his arm and leg paralyzed, and with no use or movement. He asked the nurse to find a Mormon elder. A bishop was called in who purchased oil, consecrated it, and administered to the Indian patient. "He sure had faith in the Lord," said the bishop. "We talked a little while, and I asked him if he could wiggle his toes, and you should have seen the expression on his face when he tried. Sure enough they moved, and before we left him he could raise the leg, and when I visited him last Sunday he could move both the leg and the arm." The day of the Lamanites is here! Young white missionaries throughout the Church are happy in the service, glad that they were called to this special mission, some planning to change their college majors when they return from their missions so they can work among the Indians. I see a dependent people becoming independent; for example, I see them coming in their pickups to meetings, whereas a decade ago they needed to be picked up by the missionaries, fed, and coddled. Some still must learn, but they are making progress; for instance, a party was arranged by two missionaries— the Indian people to bring the food, the elders to furnish the punch. When they assembled, they had only punch to drink. Later another party was arranged — the Indians to bring the food and the elders to bring the punch. They had both food and drink. They are learning. We called for a picture of the Indian elders. Twenty of them came — five fullblood Navajo boys, and fifteen who were part Navajo and Apache and Ute and Sioux. One of the Navajo elders whose mother and family lived less than a hundred miles away in the same mission had not asked for leave to go and visit them, and he had served eight months in the mission. One Indian elder said: "The first missionaries planted a tree on the reservation years ago. Now the tree is bearing fruit — Navajo elders! The young tree yielded little fruit, but the aging tree more fruit — more elders." There was the Navajo elder who testified of his happiness and said that when in battle — I think it was in Korea — he had dreamed one night that he was with his parents back on the reservation, but he awakened to find himself in mud and water and fire. Now he is in the midst of another dream, a dream so glorious, he said, that he hopes he will never awaken from it. These Indian elders are well-groomed, neat, smiling, and equal to their white companions — handsome and sincere — some struggling in the acquisition of the difficult English language, and others coming through the Utah Placement Program speaking perfect English and displaying the best of our own culture. White elders feel fortunate when they are lucky enough to have a Navajo companion. I see these Indian youth praying and preaching and administering to the sick, and I remember the statement of the Prophet Joseph: "Take Jacob Zundell and Frederick H. Moeser . . . and send them to Germany and when you meet an Arab send him to Arabia; when you find an Italian send him to Italy: and a Frenchman, to France; or an Indian, that is suitable, send him among the Indians. Send them to the different places where they belong." (DHC 5:368.) At last the Indians are suitable. I heard them bear their witness, saw them shed tears of joy, heard them express their affection for loved ones. I saw Indian boys actually coming in to the president to offer their services as missionaries. That couldn't have happened a decade ago. As we look into the future, surely we shall see thousands of Indian missionaries, for through our various agencies we are now training probably three thousand little Indian boys in our various departments who are growing toward missionary work. Very soon there will be an Indian boy paired off in missionary work with each white boy, and this will happen in the other Lamanite missions, I am sure. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl — sixteen — sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents — on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. The missionaries are having great experiences in proselyting, in teaching, in organizing, in carrying on Primaries, Relief Societies. They direct women in making quilts and towels and pot holders, which they say they can sell faster than they can make them; but always a Relief Society bazaar is in their future plans. They pound up broken pottery and clay to make new pottery. They do beadwork, learn cooking; they are taught first aid, bleeding-stoppage, use of splints, resuscitation, moving the injured; they are taught to speak and to sing. Three lovely Lamanite sisters sang a trio in one of our meetings. Two elders in one area were actually teaching the women how to make diapers. We find the Indians are learning to be adaptable and resourceful, and from tradition they are coming to truth, from legend to fact, from sand paintings and sings to administration and ordinances. The Indians are beginning to pay their tithes. They are living the Word of Wisdom. They are attending their meetings. They are having family prayers, and for a period of this year the tithes in that mission are said to have been more than the budget for the mission. They are grateful for that which is being done for them. A typical little nine-year-old Indian prayed: "Father in heaven, please bless the missionaries so their success will be good." A typical Indian woman pleaded: "When can I be baptized?" And the answer was, "When you have learned a little more of the gospel." An Apache saddle maker, when given the Book of Mormon lessons, said: "I know that story. I know that it is true. My old people told me about it." The Indians have legends which might be reminiscent of the three Nephites, of the creation, of the flood, of the coming of the Christ to them. They are beginning to recognize the similarity between their distorted tradition stories and the truth which has been recorded. A Jicarilla — Apache Indian elder, first counselor in the branch presidency, drives sixty-four miles to his meetings with his family and sixty-four miles home each time, and he seldom misses a meeting, except in blizzard weather. He is sharp and clean and handsome and conducts the meetings with dignity. He speaks excellent English, and this is again in fulfilment of my own patriarchal blessing, in which I was promised: "You will see them organized and be prepared to stand as the bulwark round this people." In the temple, in the June excursion, were a Navajo groom and a Pima bride, a Cherokee groom and a Navajo bride; and these, typical of the many Indians, are taking seriously to the gospel program. When they were in this convention, the good Mesa people graciously took care of their needs, and this again was in fulfilment of the prophecy of Joseph Smith. He said: "There will be tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints who will be gathered in the Rocky Mountains, and there they will open the door for the establishing of the gospel among the Lamanites who will receive the gospel and their endowments and the blessings of God." (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 30-39.) One's heart is touched when he sees thirty or forty little Hopi boys and girls gathered together in Primary, being taught by nineteen-year-old missionaries, and it is stirring even more to see twenty little wild Apache Indians galloping over the hills on their burros to attend Primary at Fort Apache. The young missionaries are learning the difficult Navajo language, and the older couples are using largely the language of love. The Navajo tongue is so difficult that it is said to have been used to send code messages in World War II because the Japanese could not decode it. It is heartwarming to hear the young Navajo elder struggling with his English pronunciation and vocabulary, but never hesitating to express his thoughts convincingly and bearing his testimony impressively. He had been told by his dying mother when he was a little boy: "Go to Mormon Church. It is true church." He choked and struggled with his tears. One devoted missionary couple was stuck in the snow last winter, and the husband pushed the car while the wife steered it. In doing so he fell and broke his knee and then pleaded with the president: "Please do not send us home. Put us in the hospital for a little time." He was given a metal knee and then crutches, and Indians who saw him hobbling around said: "Anyone as sincere as that ought to be listened to." And this mother who now has her children reared told of her patriarchal blessing given long years ago, indicating she would go on a mission with her husband, but since she was tied with her large family of little children, her husband filled his mission alone and was killed in an auto accident returning home. How could her blessing ever be fulfilled, she wondered, with children to educate and sons to send on missions, and she in her widowhood? But when the family was educated and the sons had filled their missions, she married another man, a convert, and together they are now fulfilling the patriarchal blessing and filling glorious missions. The day of the Lamanites has come. The Indians of this country, particularly of the southwest, have many blessings which are theirs today but which were not theirs yesterday. Government agencies, other groups as well as ourselves, have been conscious of their former serious plight. But today the dark clouds are dissipating. Whereas only a decade ago tens of thousands of children were without schooling, today practically every child has some educational opportunity. May I quote a paragraph from my address to this conference in 1947 regarding these Indians: "The health conditions are deplorable. They have but one full-time dentist for 63,000 people and no field nurse or doctor. The death rate is very high, being 16 per thousand as against 6.36 for the Church. The large family lives in the dirt hogan being one small circular room with dirt floor, no windows, and with a stove or fire in the center. All members of the family sleep on sheep pelts on the floor. There is no privacy, practically no furniture or equipment. There are no sanitary conveniences inside or out. With a single towel, a common cup, no hot water nor disinfectants, it is easy to see why trachoma, impetigo, and other skin diseases run through the family, and why dysentery, venereal diseases, and tuberculosis run rampant. In a survey of thirty-one families it was found that an average of three in each family had tuberculosis. In their scattered condition, and with such limited hospital facilities, many lie in their hogans, coughing in the air, spitting on the floor, to finally die on thedirt floor without medical assistance." (See The Improvement Era, May 1947, p. 348.) But today there are hospitals, doctors, nurses, and dentists. Many families live in comfortable homes, fairly well furnished. Disease is disappearing, tuberculosis much under control, and sanitation greatly improving. In our recent examination of over four hundred children in our health clinic as we brought them into Utah for this fall, we found that there were no positive results from our X-ray examinations. In the 40's these people had an average income of about $81 a year. They lived upon land which to most of us seemed worthless, barren, and forbidding; but the desolate land is producing oil and gas and uranium and coal and lumber, and many millions of dollars are flowing into the tribal treasury. In early days it was each family for itself; today the Tribal Council is using wisely these vast sums to build highways and hospitals and schools and to give scholarships. What a strange paradox, that the land given to the Indians, desolate and unwanted, turns out to be the source of many blessings! Was not Providence smiling on these folks and looking toward this day? Today we teach the gospel to the Indian youth, and tomorrow there will be thousands of them on missions. Nearly all their marriages will be performed in the temples. They will give leadership in wards and stakes which will be organized in their areas, and with their white brothers they will become leaders in the kingdom. Groups of stakes are organized into regional minority missions. About 320 of the 2300 Indians in Brigham City are members of the Church, and we have a delightful chapel which President McKay dedicated there. At Albuquerque, Riverside, at Chilloco and at Lawrence in Kansas, at Carson City in Nevada, at Chemawa in Oregon, at Anadarko in Oklahoma, and elsewhere, our youth — hundreds and hundreds of them — are receiving comparable seminary training. At Aztec, Gallup, Richfield, Flagstaff, Holbrook, Snowflake, and Winslow we are training them in connection with the government peripheral schools. About 420 Indian children are receiving the superior training in Utah homes under the educational placement program. These children are being fed, housed, clothed, and loved by the selfless people of Utah who take them into their finest homes — philanthropic people who come to love the Indian children as their own, and who give them every advantage — cultural, spiritual, and educational, and who train them in scouting organizational work, in family prayers, in seminary, and in home activities. I quote from a recent letter from an authority on Indian life and education: "I think you have a very commendable program and one which is probably the only positive approach to the Indian problem in the United States. I have spent a great part of my life living with or working with Indian people and have yet to see any program which has taken the Indian out of himself and started him down the road to progress." As these children complete their grade and high school work, Brigham Young University is ready to receive them, and special guidance courses and training advisers give them leadership, and each year now our Indian students parade in cap and gown with the other hundreds of graduates of this great institution. We have follow-up programs to help the Indian youth gain employment as they complete their schoolwork. A new class instruction program is organized on the reservation, whereby the little Indians are given religious training. At present some 2500 little fellows present themselves weekly or oftener to the young missionaries for religious instruction, assigned by the parents to the church of their choice. These little ones are being taught in about sixty classes, and young missionaries are proving their mettle in training them. Two young elders teach 102 children in their classes, and another couple, a Navajo and a white elder, are teaching 135 little boys and girls together with some of their parents who asked for the privilege of coming. Not only the southwest Indians, but Lamanites in general, are facing an open door to education, culture, refinement, progress, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church has spent its millions in Hawaii and New Zealand and other islands to provide schools for the young Lehites. Surely, no descendants need go now without an education, and schools in Mexico will be followed by schools in other nations. Surely the number of deprived ones is being reduced, and opportunity is knocking at their door. Hundreds of Lamanites are serving in mission fields in both Americas and in the islands of the sea. Lamanites are exercising their priesthood and rearing their families in righteousness. A new world is open to them, and they are grasping the opportunities. God bless the Lamanites and hasten the day of their total emancipation from the thraldom of their yesterday. I pray this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. A Grok summary: Quote Summary of Elder Spencer W. Kimball’s October 1960 General Conference Address Elder Spencer W. Kimball spoke about the rapid progress of the gospel among Native American (“Lamanite”) peoples, especially in the Southwest Indian Mission. Main Observations Fifteen years earlier there were only 94 Church members in the area; by 1960 there were more than 8,400. He reported a clear decline in superstition and a growth in faith, industry, and permanence among the people. He described numerous examples of simple, strong faith: healings through priesthood blessings, prayers for rain, and personal conversion stories. Indian members were beginning to pay tithing, keep the Word of Wisdom, hold family prayer, and attend meetings regularly. In one period, tithing from the mission exceeded the mission’s budget. “White and Delightsome” Kimball repeatedly stated that the Lamanites were becoming “white and delightsome,” both spiritually and, in his view, physically. He cited examples of lighter skin among children in the Church’s Indian Placement Program and among young members compared with their parents. He framed this as fulfillment of Book of Mormon promises. Leadership and Missionary Work Native young men were beginning to serve as full-time missionaries (he showed a photo of 20 Indian elders). He predicted that thousands more would soon serve, often paired with white companions. Indian members were taking on local leadership roles (branch presidencies, etc.). He quoted Joseph Smith’s counsel to send people to teach among their own kindreds and said the time had arrived when Indian missionaries were ready. Social and Economic Progress Kimball contrasted the severe poverty, disease, and lack of education of the 1940s with conditions in 1960: Far better access to schools, hospitals, and medical care. Rising incomes from tribal resources (oil, gas, uranium, etc.). Improved housing and sanitation. Growing participation in education, including the Church’s Indian Placement Program (about 420 children in Utah homes) and seminary programs at various schools. Overall Message Kimball declared that “the day of the Lamanites is here” and “nigh.” He saw the combination of gospel acceptance, education, economic improvement, and priesthood leadership as the beginning of the fulfillment of ancient covenants with the house of Israel. He closed by praying for the complete emancipation of the Lamanites from the limitations of their past. I also asked Grok: "What did Elder Kimball have to say about 'race' or 'skin' or 'blood' in this talk?" The response: Quote In the October 1960 address, Elder Spencer W. Kimball made several direct statements about skin color and the idea of becoming “white and delightsome.” Key statements on skin / race: He said the Indian people “are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.” Later he repeated and expanded the idea: “For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.” He pointed to a group of 20 Lamanite missionaries and observed: “Fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome.” He claimed that children in the Church’s Indian Placement Program in Utah were often lighter-skinned than their siblings who remained on the reservation. He described a specific family: a 16-year-old member girl sitting between her parents was “several shades lighter than her parents” even though they lived in the same hogan and experienced the same sun and weather. He recounted a doctor who had an Indian boy in his home for two years and said the boy was “some shades lighter” than a younger brother just arriving from the reservation. He noted a white missionary joking that he and his companion were donating blood regularly “in the hope that the process might be accelerated.” Kimball presented these observations as evidence that the Book of Mormon promise of the Lamanites becoming “white and delightsome” was being fulfilled in both a spiritual and a literal, physical sense. He did not use the word “race” in a technical or biological sense, nor did he speak of “blood” in terms of racial purity or lineage beyond the standard Book of Mormon framing of Lamanite identity. The focus was almost entirely on skin color lightening as a visible sign of the promised change. The Church has clearly distanced itself from the idea that skin color is a sign of divine favor or disfavor. In 1981 the Church changed the Book of Mormon wording in 2 Nephi 30:6 from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” (restoring a change Joseph Smith had made in the 1840 edition). This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but because subsequent editions were based off the European editions (which followed the 1837 edition), the change did not get perpetuated until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original. The 2013 Gospel Topics essay “Race and the Priesthood” explicitly disavows past theories that black skin (or any skin color) is a curse or a mark of unrighteousness. It states that Church leaders today “unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” Current teaching materials and manuals almost never quote or reference Kimball’s 1960 skin-color remarks. Most active members who are aware of the talk therefore treat Kimball’s comments as a product of his time and of the then-common interpretation of the Book of Mormon text, not as binding doctrine. Elder (and, later, President) Kimball was an admirable man. He was, to some extent, fettered to some extent by the prevailing notions of the day. Nevertheless, he sought and received the 1978 revelation ending the priesthood/temple restriction for Black members, and that he spent decades advocating for Native American education and advancement. Consequently, I separate his 1960 racial assumptions from what I see as his overall ministry of inclusion. 4 hours ago, theplains said: There is also a preoccupation with "blood". Supposedly the Indians contain a "purer strain of Israelitish blood than many members of the Church" even though the LDS Church teaches some who are acted upon by the Holy Ghost have their blood changed into the literal blood of Abraham. (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual).. Here is the exact quote: "... for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost". Before examining the "red men" teaching, let's look at what Spencer Kimball said: "The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter we represent, the little member girl, sixteen, sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather .... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness" Here is the gospel "truth" I was alluding to earlier about the "red men": FUTURE FATE OF THE RED MAN. Improbable as it may seem, it is nevertheless true that the Indians are not destined to be crowded off the face of the land by the whites; neither will the whites ever witness their utter extermination. In ancient days the Lord made covenants with various individuals in relation to their descendants-that he would bless them, etc., and would not suffer them to perish from the face of the earth, but would remember them in the last days, and would reveal unto them the abun-dance of peace and truth.... The Book of Mormon, the record containing the ancient history of America, plainly states that the Lord did also make such a covenant with the ancestors of the present American Indians, and with other holy men who formerly inhabited this continent ... Instead, therefore, of there being any likelihood of the Indians being exterminated, or meeting the fate many imagine to be inevitable, there is much more danger that the whites themselves will be the people who will experience this fate, or something approximating thereto. The only way they can avoid it is by receiving and obeying the fullness of the Gospel. Yet, this they as a nation have rejected. (December 13, 1856, WS 270-71) INDIANS RECEPTIVE TO GOSPEL. Strange to say—if anything can be said to be strange connected with the work of God-the descendants of those ancient covenant people of the Lord have gladly received the testimony of the servants of God. Wherever we have gone and mingled with those people, with those Red Men, and been able to communicate to them the truths of which we are in possession, which God has revealed to us, they have received the same gladly, not only upon this continent but upon the islands of the sea; ... everywhere where those men with red skins dwell, they have gladly received the testimony of God's servants concerning the Gospel, and they rejoice in its fullness and in the knowledge that their fathers once possessed and of the redemption that Jesus Christ has wrought out for them. Most wonderful has this prediction been fulfilled in this respect. (April 6, 1884, JD 25:123-24) THE INDIANS TO BUILD NEW JERUSALEM. The Latter-day Saints should remember who these red men are and the predictions which have been made concerning them. They are our brethren, being of the house of Israel and containing a purer strain of Israelitish blood than many members of the Church. It has been predicted, and the word of the Lord will no more fail in this respect than in any other, that they will yet become a white and delightsome people, possessed of a very high degree of cultivation. They are to build the New Jerusalem, and we, who are of the Gentile nations, are to assist them in the work. The prospect of such a condition of things may humble our pride, but we may as well look squarely at the destiny which is before [them]... in the due time of the Lord they will be redeemed.... (February 1, 1895, JI 30:75-76) President George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, volume 2, chapter 8, pages 97-98. Your post starts with "No questions herein, just observations." Are you interested in having a discussion about these matters? Thanks, -Smac 1
Amulek Posted August 4 Posted August 4 (edited) @theplains, my question is easier: Why is it that all of your opening posts have these weird line breaks? Are you just copying / pasting from some other source? Edited August 4 by Amulek 2
Stargazer Posted August 5 Posted August 5 On 8/3/2026 at 9:41 PM, smac97 said: He was, to some extent, fettered to some extent by the prevailing notions of the day. Everyone in all ages have been fettered by the prevailing notions of their days. Unfortunately, many prefer the siren call of presentism rather than a consideration of the surrounding culture for historical persons. 2
theplains Posted August 7 Author Posted August 7 On 8/4/2026 at 1:46 PM, Amulek said: my question is easier: Why is it that all of your opening posts have these weird line breaks? Are you just copying / pasting from some other source? I write in Notepad and then paste into the forum window. The fonts are not the same. 2
theplains Posted August 7 Author Posted August 7 On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify? See below. On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: I assume you are referring to then-Elder Kimball's address starting on page 32. Am I correct about that? Yes. On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: Here is the text of his address: A Grok summary: I also asked Grok: "What did Elder Kimball have to say about 'race' or 'skin' or 'blood' in this talk?" The response: Kimball presented these observations as evidence that the Book of Mormon promise of the Lamanites becoming “white and delightsome” was being fulfilled in both a spiritual and a literal, physical sense. He did not use the word “race” in a technical or biological sense, nor did he speak of “blood” in terms of racial purity or lineage beyond the standard Book of Mormon framing of Lamanite identity. The focus was almost entirely on skin color lightening as a visible sign of the promised change". I would say "race" as in Native American Indians. Right. One's physical skin color changing. On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: "The Church has clearly distanced itself from the idea that skin color is a sign of divine favor or disfavor." The LDS Church continues to teach in its seminary manuals that a dark skin color was the sign of the curse. 1) "Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord" (Religion 121–122 - Book of Mormon Student Manual, 2018, chapter 8). 2) "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of their skin was only a mark or sign of the curse. To clarify this point, have a student read the following statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. . . . "The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord" (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23) (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012). 3] The color of one's skin will even be a factor on Judgment Day. Have a look at what the LDS Church teaches about Jacob 3:8-9. "O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers". The 2017 Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual says this: "Summarize Alma 3:5–17 by explaining that these verses describe the curse and the mark that had come upon the Lamanites. Remind students that the curse the Lamanites experienced was separation from God because of their rebellion and disobedience. The mark, which at that time distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites, was that "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" (Alma 3:6). You may also want to remind students that it is wrong to revile or look down upon someone because of the color of his or her skin (see Jacob 3:9)". The context is physical skin color. It should be noted that the current version (2024) removed this false teaching. On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: In 1981 the Church changed the Book of Mormon wording in 2 Nephi 30:6 from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” (restoring a change Joseph Smith had made in the 1840 edition). This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but because subsequent editions were based off the European editions (which followed the 1837 edition), the change did not get perpetuated until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original. There's more to it than that. See the FAIR article titled, "What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by "Skin of Blackness"? "2 Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, 4–2:897, appears to follow the suggestion that there was a physical change in skin color. Discussing the change of white to pure in 2 Nephi 6:30 for the 1840 edition, he notes: "Of course, the 1840 change of white to pure avoids . . . the need to interpret the remnant of the Nephites as being dark skinned. In other words, the editing change to pure may represent a conscious attempt at avoiding what was perceived as a difficult reading (the Nephites as being dark skinned), which therefore explains why the change from white to pure was made here—and only here—in 2 Nephi 30:6. There has never been any attempt to emend any of the passages that directly comment on the dark skin of the Lamanites." Skousen's argument for the reason for the editorial change is persuasive. It persuades, however, that the reader's understanding of the text related to a change in pigmentation. It does not discuss the point made in this commentary of the text's use of skin as a metaphor rather than as a literal description". Despite the esthetic reword in later Book of Mormon versions, Alma 3:6-8 remains to lend support to the real intent of 2 Nephi 30:6. On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: The 2013 Gospel Topics essay “Race and the Priesthood” explicitly disavows past theories that black skin (or any skin color) is a curse or a mark of unrighteousness. It states that Church leaders today “unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” But they were not taught as theories in the past. And the LDS Church still teaches it in seminary manuals. See above. Sure. The LDS Church is noble to try and disavow these false teachings. Leading people astray is not a good image. On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: Current teaching materials and manuals almost never quote or reference Kimball’s 1960 skin-color remarks. For obvious reasons. Fortunately his and teachings by others are still available. On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, smac97 said: Most active members who are aware of the talk therefore treat Kimball’s comments as a product of his time and of the then-common interpretation of the Book of Mormon text, not as binding doctrine. Those comments constitute false teaching. Spencer Kimball wasn't the only one. See chapters 15 and 16 of "The Way to Perfection". The teachings therein are not portrayed as opinion, theory, or speculation.
smac97 Posted August 8 Posted August 8 (edited) 10 hours ago, theplains said: Quote "The Church has clearly distanced itself from the idea that skin color is a sign of divine favor or disfavor." The LDS Church continues to teach in its seminary manuals that a dark skin color was the sign of the curse. 1) "Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord" (Religion 121–122 - Book of Mormon Student Manual, 2018, chapter 8). This is interesting. Your quote here is from Chapter 8 of the Church's 2018 Student Manual, which quotes an excerpt from Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith's "Answers to Gospel Questions." This same passage was quoted two years later in the Come Follow Me manual: Significantly, the Church publicly apologized for this, calling it an error (Deseret News) : Quote Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called on all people to act as their brother’s keeper during the 36th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Luncheon, sponsored by the NAACP Monday. The organization honored the Huntsman Foundation and groundbreaking Salt Lake County Sheriff Rosie Rivera at its annual luncheon, held as the nation celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day across the country. ... Elder Stevenson preceded his remarks by expressing regret that the church’s 2020 “Come, Follow Me” gospel study manual includes an old statement that dark skin in the Book of Mormon was the sign of a curse. Elder Stevenson disavowed that statement. “One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race,” he said. “It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our annual online manual, which is used by the great majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change. “We’re asking our members to disregard the paragraph in the printed manual,” he added. “Now I’m deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others. I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, and we disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters, and I consider you friends. I love and appreciate you,” he said, drawing applause from those gathered. Jerri Harwell, associate professor of English at Salt Lake Community College, said Elder Stevenson’s statement was timely, saying the manual was hurtful. “This was very fortuitous timing,” she said. “I am so glad the Brethren addressed this through a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I hope that message gets out to 16.5 million members. I hope they follow up with it.” See also LDS Living and KSL News. And also here (Millennial Star Blog). Ben Spackman quite helpfully weighed in as well: Inerrancy among Church Employees about Church Materials Quote I had a conversation1 in a public Facebook group about the “printing error” in the 2020 Book of Mormon manual. I raised some substantial concerns, filled out with a number of links to my own research and posts about cursing in scripture (e.g. here and in my posts on 2 Nephi 1-5, here and here). Two S&I/COB2 employees responded to me by bearing fervent testimony of the Curriculum and Correlation processes and berating anyone who dared hold any other opinion. These testimonies constituted de facto witnessing of inerrancy (not the first I’ve seen) and also violated Elder Ballard’s directive specifically to S&I teachers; Quote “Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue.” I even called them out on avoiding the central issues, which received no response. One of them said (quoting from a screenshot), Quote “It is not just Correlation that reviews and approves curriculum, but the very Apostles and prophets you are using to attempt to straighten [first S&I commenter] out. Does it really not occur to you that the Quorum of the Twelve understands and approves these materials? The ‘ark’ does not need steadying.” Let’s set aside the traditional misunderstanding of the “steadying the ark” story. Let’s set aside the fact that Elder Stevenson demonstrates below that in this case, the ark did need steadying, as Curriculum, Correlation, and review failed to do its job— or more likely, simply saw nothing wrong with what had been written. Let’s set aside that manuals themselves invite feedback and constructive criticism via an email address. (Seriously, open any printed manual and look. I myself was one of those back in fall who was made aware of the problems with the printed manual, and privately raised my voice.) No, the problem is that while S&I may venerate these manuals because of their mythic view of the review process, it does not appear that such intensive Apostolic review actually corresponds to reality. (Even if it were, it would not guarantee the correctness of the material.) From the Deseret News on January 20, here is an Apostle speaking about this issue, my italics. Quote Elder Stevenson preceded his remarks by expressing regret that the church’s 2020 “Come, Follow Me” gospel study manual includes an old statement that dark skin in the Book of Mormon was the sign of a curse. Elder Stevenson disavowed that statement. “One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race,” he said. “It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our annual online manual, which is used by the great majority of our members. A search of the Church's website indicates that the quote still appears in two places (neither which is the Come Follow Me manual) : Quote Books and Lessons Chapter 8: 2 Nephi 4–8 “The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin ... Books and Lessons Lesson 27: 2 Nephi 5 “The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin ... The URLs for these two: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual-2018/chapter-8-2-nephi-4-8?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2013/2-nephi/lesson-27?lang=eng Note that these manuals were published in 2018 and 2013, respectively, so both came out prior to the 2020 retraction/apology by Elder Stevenson as noted above. Quote Quote We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change. “We’re asking our members to disregard the paragraph in the printed manual,” he added. “Now I’m deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others. I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, and we disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters, and I consider you friends. I love and appreciate you,” he said, drawing applause from those gathered. So, in Elder Stevenson’s words, this was a mistake in the manual, which escaped the attention of Church leaders. His words do not lend support to the view of these two S&I employees that the printed published manuals must be treated as the infallible word of God because they have been closely reviewed by Apostles. Nor does the printed history support it. Example 1, manuals change, sometimes 180 degrees. Ben's comments about expectations of infallible church manuals are, in my view, very worthwhile. I encourage you to read his entire post. I surmise - but cannot confirm - that the Church's historical retention of manuals (such as those published prior to 2020) may well include quotes which have since been set aside. Either that or the Church has only been made aware of the quote existing in the 2020 manual, and so has simply overlooked these other sources (from 2013 and 2018). In any event, let's go back to your critique that the Church "continues to teach in its seminary manuals" the very quote for which an apostle in the Church very publicly apologized, and which he explicitly said had been "mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual," and which quote he said - again, publicly - the Church had asked members to "disregard." Given what I have now presented to you, do you think your statement is accurate? Or would you consider re-visiting it? 10 hours ago, theplains said: 2) "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of their skin was only a mark or sign of the curse. To clarify this point, have a student read the following statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. . . . "The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord" (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23) (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012). 3} The color of one's skin will even be a factor on Judgment Day. Have a look at what the LDS Church teaches about Jacob 3:8-9. "O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers". The 2017 Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual says this: "Summarize Alma 3:5–17 by explaining that these verses describe the curse and the mark that had come upon the Lamanites. Remind students that the curse the Lamanites experienced was separation from God because of their rebellion and disobedience. The mark, which at that time distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites, was that "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" (Alma 3:6). You may also want to remind students that it is wrong to revile or look down upon someone because of the color of his or her skin (see Jacob 3:9)". The context is physical skin color. It should be noted that the current version (2024) removed this false teaching. Okay. Could you then explain why you are claiming that the Church "continues to teach in its seminary manuals" items which were addressed in 2020 by Elder Stevenson in 2020 and removed from the current (2024) version? 10 hours ago, theplains said: Quote In 1981 the Church changed the Book of Mormon wording in 2 Nephi 30:6 from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” (restoring a change Joseph Smith had made in the 1840 edition). This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but because subsequent editions were based off the European editions (which followed the 1837 edition), the change did not get perpetuated until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original. There's more to it than that. See the FAIR article titled, "What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by "Skin of Blackness"? "2 Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, 4–2:897, appears to follow the suggestion that there was a physical change in skin color. Discussing the change of white to pure in 2 Nephi 6:30 for the 1840 edition, he notes: "Of course, the 1840 change of white to pure avoids . . . the need to interpret the remnant of the Nephites as being dark skinned. In other words, the editing change to pure may represent a conscious attempt at avoiding what was perceived as a difficult reading (the Nephites as being dark skinned), which therefore explains why the change from white to pure was made here—and only here—in 2 Nephi 30:6. There has never been any attempt to emend any of the passages that directly comment on the dark skin of the Lamanites." Skousen's argument for the reason for the editorial change is persuasive. It persuades, however, that the reader's understanding of the text related to a change in pigmentation. It does not discuss the point made in this commentary of the text's use of skin as a metaphor rather than as a literal description". Despite the esthetic reword in later Book of Mormon versions, Alma 3:6-8 remains to lend support to the real intent of 2 Nephi 30:6. What do you feel is "the real intent of 2 Nephi 30:6"? The FAIR article you cite was written by Brant Gardner. An eminently erudite and sharp scholar, one of our best. 10 hours ago, theplains said: Quote The 2013 Gospel Topics essay “Race and the Priesthood” explicitly disavows past theories that black skin (or any skin color) is a curse or a mark of unrighteousness. It states that Church leaders today “unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” But they were not taught as theories in the past. Perhaps not. But the issue has been corrected for some years now. 10 hours ago, theplains said: And the LDS Church still teaches it in seminary manuals. See above. Not sure about that. See above. 10 hours ago, theplains said: Sure. The LDS Church is noble to try and disavow these false teachings. Leading people astray is not a good image. Could you elaborate? Is the Church allowed, in your view, to correct past errors? Are all past errors instances of the Church "leading people astray"? What are your thoughts about Ben Spackman's comments about "infallible" manuals (or, errors leading some to consider manuals to be infallible)? 10 hours ago, theplains said: Quote Current teaching materials and manuals almost never quote or reference Kimball’s 1960 skin-color remarks. For obvious reasons. Fortunately his and teachings by others are still available. Yes. That availability is a fulfillment of Mormon 9:32: Quote Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. The leaders of the Church are not perfect, nor are those responsible for overseeing the contents of its manuals. Mistakes happen. 10 hours ago, theplains said: Quote Most active members who are aware of the talk therefore treat Kimball’s comments as a product of his time and of the then-common interpretation of the Book of Mormon text, not as binding doctrine. Those comments constitute false teaching. Well, perhaps, and perhaps not. 10 hours ago, theplains said: Spencer Kimball wasn't the only one. See chapters 15 and 16 of "The Way to Perfection". The teachings therein are not portrayed as opinion, theory, or speculation. Could you elaborate on the significance of this issue for you? Thanks, -Smac Edited August 8 by smac97 1
Calm Posted August 8 Posted August 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: . I myself was one of those back in fall who was made aware of the problems with the printed manual, and privately raised my voice.) I have done it myself for stuff online and known others who have as well, in one case I know it was changed based on the input, can’t remember in other cases. Doing so resulted in my being part of a survey group (covered something unrelated, but obviously it showed they appreciated rather than ignored my input). Edited August 8 by Calm 1
BlipBlap Posted Tuesday at 09:16 AM Posted Tuesday at 09:16 AM So there seems to be a running theme with these posts: The user starts off with "Here's another gospel "truth" once taught by the LDS Church." or similar. The user then proceeds to post content that, while coming from some people in authority, fails to provide evidence of it being an accepted teaching of the church. It's the run-of-the-mill conflation of individual statements with doctrine. This begs the question: Has this user read D&C 107:27-32? It doesn't seem to be the case, as at no point are we told to take all of what any member says as "truth", regardless of their position.
theplains Posted yesterday at 08:17 PM Author Posted yesterday at 08:17 PM On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: Significantly, the Church publicly apologized for this, calling it an error (Deseret News) : See also LDS Living and KSL News. And also here (Millennial Star Blog). That Deseret article mentions an apology but the 2020 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Luncheon, hosted by the NAACP Salt Lake Branch, doesn't contain an official Church apology—it reports Elder Gary E. Stevenson teaching unity and quoting 2 Nephi 26:33 ("all are alike unto God"). See the Newsroom article. No LDS President makes an apology. Instead, it falls to Elder Stevenson, who says "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". Of course it causes a person some form of pain hearing that they inherited the sign of the curse (dark skin) from their ancestors. Does the LDS Church also apologize for the statement made in Mosiah 16:3 ("For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil")? Stevenson's words "that it may have caused" seems like a shallow apology. Imagine stealing a car and then going to the owner and saying "I apologize for my theft and for any pain that it may have caused you". Of course it has caused the owner pain. I frequently hear this type of apology on the news after a politician has said something offensive – "I'm sorry if what I said may have caused you pain or may have offended you". The church's Newsroom article does not mention the word "error" or "hurt" whereas the Deseret article does. And why wait for 2020 to make any type of announcement with probably a substantial Black presence? More broadly, the Church has not issued a formal institutional apology for past restrictions, but it has explicitly repudiated the "black skin = curse/disfavor" idea and condemned racism: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse…". See "Priesthood and Temple Restriction". If you can find a formal apology, then let me know. As I mentioned before, this was not advanced as a theory in the past. It was taught as the truth. This is not about "racism" as we view it negatively today. It's just a racial issue where the Book of Mormon and LDS leaders have taught that God was the initiator. More about this later. On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: In any event, let's go back to your critique that the Church "continues to teach in its seminary manuals" the very quote for which an apostle in the Church very publicly apologized, and which he explicitly said had been "mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual," and which quote he said - again, publicly - the Church had asked members to "disregard." Given what I have now presented to you, do you think your statement is accurate? Or would you consider re-visiting it? I read Spackman's article. He didn't really add much relevancy to what was mentioned in the Deseret article. One noteworthy quote was from the Millennial Star article: "As you study the Book of Mormon CFM manual, be aware of this error that is now in the printed manual. Sadly, we still have many in Church curriculum and CES, who study and quote from 60 year old books, such as from Joseph Fielding Smith. Great prophet, lousy historian and scholar. Focus your studies on the scriptures, with guidance from recent scholarship and statements from recent prophets". "Yet, we still have members writing our manuals that ignore that teaching and go even further back to wrong theories of the past. We NEED real scholars involved in manual writing!" But you fail to realize that this and other teachings in the 60-year old books were taught as doctrine (truth), not opinion, speculation, or theory. The teachings therein have crept into subsequent books, magazines, and sermons down through the years. That's why some of these books are called "Doctrines of Salvation", "Gospel Doctrine", and "Gospel Doctrine Plain and Simple". One seminary manual is even called "Doctrines of the Gospel – Student Manual (Religion 430-431)". If these contain errors, then the LDS Church has led its members astray for almost 200 years … and counting. Prior to the error correction in 2020, the LDS Church has just continued propagating what was previously taught as "truth" by former LDS leaders. I think cultural sensitivities pushed the church to change course in 1978. Then, decades later, it seems they decided to clean up some teachings they had come to believe were wrong, offensive, and deceiving people. But I appreciate the LDS Church for trying to remove what it considers "errors" so that many more people are not led astray by LDS Presidents or other apostles in the church. We need those 60+ year old books and previous copies of LDS Church seminary manuals so that history will not be erased prior to new members deciding to join the church. The Watchtower also does a similar thing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They try to hide their historical teachings by taking some books out of circulation or maintaining them but doing significant rewrites. The new versions replace the old ones, while the old versions are quietly pushed aside and effectively buried. In both cases, new members rarely come to realize that Governing Body members LDS Presidents really can lead people astray with false teachings. On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: Okay. Could you then explain why you are claiming that the Church "continues to teach in its seminary manuals" items which were addressed in 2020 by Elder Stevenson in 2020 and removed from the current (2024) version? Noted. I will reword that claim when the LDS Church removes the error, which leads people astray. Why was it found in manuals and books prior to 2020? Because the LDS Church continued to teach what previous LDS Presidents and apostles taught as "truth". If you can show me where Joseph Fielding Smith and others taught it as opinion, speculation, or theory, then let me know with specific words of his or theirs to that effect. "The Way to Perfection" even says the doctrine of Cain and his descendants originated with Joseph Smith. "Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam's posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been "despised among all people." This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. "… the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring." On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: What do you feel is "the real intent of 2 Nephi 30:6"? The FAIR article you cite was written by Brant Gardner. An eminently erudite and sharp scholar, one of our best. Gardner doesn't say anything that would indicate physical skin color or shade is not the context. I agree with another statement: "Of course, the 1840 change of white to pure avoids . . . the need to interpret the remnant of the Nephites as being dark skinned. In other words, the editing change to pure may represent a conscious attempt at avoiding what was perceived as a difficult reading". The real intent of "white" as opposed to "pure" in 2 Nephi 30:6 is that is aligns with other parts of the Book of Mormon. It's not the only one speaking of physical skin color. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done" (2 Nephi 5:20-23). Alma 3:6-7 says, the skins of the Lamanites were dark, "according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women". Alma 23:18 says there was a case where the curse was removed from the Lamanites and it did no more follow them. This assumes their skin color changes because it's a sign of the curse. "And they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them". The word "curse" is linked to several passages. One of them is 3 Nephi 2:14–16 ("And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites"). 4 Nephi 1:45-46 says the Nephites had become wicked like the Lamanites. There were none righteous except for only the three disciples. Moroni 9:20 says that the Nephites were more wicked than the Lamanites. They were recorded as having raped Lamanite women, torturing them unto death, and eating their flesh (Moroni 9:9-10). But in none of this did the skin color of the Nephites become dark. The sign of the curse never returns upon them as when the Lamanites received from God. On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: Perhaps not. But the issue has been corrected for some years now. Show me where their older statements sound like opinions, theories, or speculations? On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: Is the Church allowed, in your view, to correct past errors? Yes. Consider another false teaching: "… a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray: The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God" (Gospel Principles). On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: Are all past errors instances of the Church "leading people astray"? Yes. They were leading them astray while they lived and the errors continued. Many a Jehovah's Witness died having worshipped Jesus Christ before 1953, and then it became blasphemy to do so. On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: What are your thoughts about Ben Spackman's comments about "infallible" manuals (or, errors leading some to consider manuals to be infallible)? I couldn't find that statement made by Ben in the article. Maybe you meant this one: "His words do not lend support to the view of these two S&I employees that the printed published manuals must be treated as the infallible word of God because they have been closely reviewed by Apostles. Nor does the printed history support it". I would say that one error does not make an entire manual fallible. The article "Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine" (May 4, 2007) says it more directly: "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal… opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church". A healthy pattern is to listen respectfully, then check teachings against the standard works and what the First Presidency and Twelve consistently teach, and seek your own confirmation from the Holy Ghost. Some key phrases are "necessarily constitutes", "a single statement", "a single leader", and "a single occasion". It's a different story when false teachings have persisted for almost 200 years. It's more like multiple similar teachings made by multiple leaders on multiple occasions. The present day LDS Church tries to clean up these errors from time to time. Instead of labelling those people as false teachers, they are relegated to men teaching things as opinions, speculations, or theories. On 8/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, smac97 said: Could you elaborate on the significance of this issue for you? Regarding what I said about The Way to Perfection, the curse of the dark skin on the Lamanites is not the first time in history where people supposedly are given dark skin by God as a sign of the curse. See my comments earlier on Cain and his descendants.
smac97 Posted yesterday at 08:51 PM Posted yesterday at 08:51 PM 7 minutes ago, theplains said: That Deseret article mentions an apology but the 2020 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Luncheon, hosted by the NAACP Salt Lake Branch, doesn't contain an official Church apology—it reports Elder Gary E. Stevenson teaching unity and quoting 2 Nephi 26:33 ("all are alike unto God"). See the Newsroom article. No LDS President makes an apology. Instead, it falls to Elder Stevenson, who says "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". From the DesNews article: Quote Elder Stevenson preceded his remarks by expressing regret that the church’s 2020 “Come, Follow Me” gospel study manual includes an old statement that dark skin in the Book of Mormon was the sign of a curse. Elder Stevenson disavowed that statement. “One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race,” he said. “It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our annual online manual, which is used by the great majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change. “We’re asking our members to disregard the paragraph in the printed manual,” he added. “Now I’m deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others. I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, and we disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters, and I consider you friends. I love and appreciate you,” he said, drawing applause from those gathered. I am not sure what sort of nomenclature need be deployed here. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: Of course it causes a person some form of pain hearing that they inherited the sign of the curse (dark skin) from their ancestors. Does the LDS Church also apologize for the statement made in Mosiah 16:3 ("For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil")? I'm not sure what you are asking here. In this chapter Abinadi is quoted as speaking of "the wicked." There is no racial or skin color component to verse 3 (moreover, Abinadi was speaking to a Nephite king). 7 minutes ago, theplains said: Stevenson's words "that it may have caused" seems like a shallow apology. Or it may reflect the possibility that not everyone who encountered this error was pained by it. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: The church's Newsroom article does not mention the word "error" or "hurt" whereas the Deseret article does. And why wait for 2020 to make any type of announcement with probably a substantial Black presence? You would first need to demonstrate that any "waiting" was involved. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: More broadly, the Church has not issued a formal institutional apology for past restrictions, but it has explicitly repudiated the "black skin = curse/disfavor" idea and condemned racism: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse…". See "Priesthood and Temple Restriction". If you can find a formal apology, then let me know. I think the disavowal is what we have. Reasonable minds can disagree about collective guilt, the utility of public "apologies," and the like. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: But you fail to realize that this and other teachings in the 60-year old books were taught as doctrine (truth), not opinion, speculation, or theory. The teachings therein have crept into subsequent books, magazines, and sermons down through the years. That's why some of these books are called "Doctrines of Salvation", "Gospel Doctrine", and "Gospel Doctrine Plain and Simple". One seminary manual is even called "Doctrines of the Gospel – Student Manual (Religion 430-431)". I think the Church, and more particularly its leaders, has gone through long an arduous processes intended to differentiate doctrine from conjecture and personal opinion, as such differentiations were not always made. I made these comments in 2016: Quote I think he {Richard L. Bushman} is using the word "narrative" in a way that some people might construe as problematic, but I don't think he intends it that way ( I may be wrong, so I will try to get to listening to the rest of it later). That is to say, there is a story about the restored gospel. What actually happened. God exists and has certain characteristics and attributes. Jesus Christ is his son and our Redeemer. We are his Spirit children. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. An angel appeared to Joseph Smith. An angel directed him to the Golden Plates. He translated those plates through Divine means. He was given the priesthood. He organized the Church, which today presents itself as having exclusive stick truth claims and authority. This is the "story." The "narrative" pertains to how that "story" is told and communicated, bother bother to each other and to those outside our faith. Which parts are emphasized. Which parts are not. Which points are important, and which points are not. Which points are core to our beliefs, and which points are open to differing interpretations and perspectives. For example, we tend to lionize and venerate prophets and apostles. And yet we also teach that they have weaknesses and make mistakes. They are not infallible. To what extent do we discuss and evaluate these weaknesses/mistakes? How big a part do these weaknesses and mistakes play in the narrative? How much emphasis is too much? What about the controversial aspects of LDS history? The Mountain Meadows Massacre. The priesthood restriction. Polygamy. How big a part in the "narrative" should we give to these aspects of the gospel story? What about contemporary controversies? Female ordination. Treatment of same-sex marriage specifically and people with same-sex attraction generally. Disclosure of church finances. How do these fit into the narrative? How big a part of the narrative are they? What about doctrinal disputes? Perhaps these above all of the above issues are going to be the most difficult to address by the church and in the church. Can someone who rejects the Book of Mormon as being a record of actual people and actual events, and who instead views it as a piece of "inspired fiction," teach a Sunday School class about the Book of Mormon? Hold a temple recommend? He called to a prominent leadership position in a ward or stake? What about someone who categorically rejects Elder Nelson's comments earlier this year pertaining to the origins of the recent changes to the church handbook pertaining to being in a same-sex marriage being a form of apostasy? Is that "okay?" What about someone who categorically reject any iteration of Church-sanctiones polygamy being authorized/ordained of God? Is that "okay?" I think what a lot of this comes down to is nuance and complexity and details. Advances in technology, communications, scholarship, and - perhaps most importantly - the sheer amount of data we have about the "story" of the Gospel have pretty much required us to go back to the drawing board as far as the gospel narrative. I do not think Bro. Bushmen intends to suggest that the underlying "story" needs to be abandoned, at least not in a big picture kind of way. I don't think he is suggesting that we revisit the idea that God lives, or that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or that they appeared to Joseph Smith, or that the gold plates actually exist, and so on. At one point in the video for the Bushmen speak to someone off camera who voices skepticism about the Book of Mormon and juxtaposes that skepticism with his (Bro. Bushman's) continuing belief that there were, in fact, gold plates. In another part he remarks how people like Elder Packer seemed to want to protect little old grandmothers in Sanpete County, but that the narrative intended to protect these grandmothers is resulting in the loss of their grandsons. So I think brother Bushman is suggesting that the narrative about the gold plates needs to be told in a more complex and more nuanced way. Take, for example, the book "Truth Restored" written by Gordon B Hinckley long before he became the president of the church, but which is now used rather frequently in the church. It is a fairly well written overview of the history of the church. But it was originally written in 1947, and it is only about 150 pages long. It discusses the gospel in broad strokes and basic terms. 70 years later, however, we have extraordinary amounts of information about the same materials discussed in this book. I think what Brother Bushman is saying is that the little old grandmothers in Sanpete County have long been accustomed to the briefer and simpler narrative in books like this. And in Gospel Doctrine lessons like this. And so on. However, the grandsons of these grandmothers are probably not going to be satisfied with this simpler and briefer narrative approach. I think the Church is recognizing this. The Joseph Smith papers project to me strongly suggest that the church is trying, and in many ways succeeding, to keep Pace with the need to prevent a more detailed and complex narrative about the restored gospel, about church history, and about troubling and difficult parts of these things. The Joseph Smith Papers project. The Gospel Topics essays. Royal Skousen's critical text of the Book of Mormon. Brant Gardner's "Second Witness" series. To me, these are all wonderful developments, and I think indicate that the narrative is, in fact, changing to accommodate added information, scholarship, and broader perspectives about the Gospel "story" then were previously available to and openly discussed the Saints. I can't speak to the prototypical "grandmother from Sanpete County"-type concern about the changing "narrative" of the Restored Gospel. To be honest, I cannot think of a recent concern expressed by any of the church members with whom I interact that would conform to this prototype. Rather comma my experience has gone quite the other way. I think many members of the Church, at least most that I know personally, are either sanguine/indifferent or outright excited about new information and new developments and nuanced approaches to parts of the Gospel "story" that were previously "narrated" in more simplistic terms. And in 2022: Quote So to sum up, Bushman - who seems to have started the whole "reconstruct the dominant narrative" thing back in 2016 - has stated that the rumors that he had renounced his faith in the foundational truth claims of the Restored Gospel are false, he remains "on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations,." "the Church was lying {about its history}" claim being bandied about is "not a fair judgment," his "dominant narrative" comment is being inaccurately construed as him admitting that he has lost confidence in the basic history of the Church, what he had meant was that some errors had crept into our popularized accounts of the early history of the Church, and that these errors should be straightened out, the entirety of the Church, "from top to bottom," has needed to "reconstruct" our historical narrative so as to "adjust to the findings of our historians," and the Church has done what he had been proposing, that it has produced a "reconstructed narrative" of the history of the Church by publishing Saints, the Joseph Smith Papers project, the Gospel Topics Essays, and so on. Based on this, I must respectfully disagree somewhat with your comment that "{w}here the improvements are really needed are in Church," and that "unless the average member goes looking for the scholarship the problem of an uninformed membership remains." I think the Church has been working hard to provide members with meaningful and substantive resources which provide a considerably improved "narrative" of our history. The resources Bushman has specifically credited as reconstructing the narrative (Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all) are freely available to the world online. Additionally, the "Church History" section of the Church's website includes many other resources that I think Bushman would construe as even further reconstructing the narrative: Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting) Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants) Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants") Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers") Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes) First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision) Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church) Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items) Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.) Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally) Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world) At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women") The First Fifty Years of Relief Society Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society") Moreover, the Church also maintains https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/, which includes all of the foregoing historical resources plus many more: The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents") Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world) Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry) The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.) Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.") Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.") Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum) Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources) Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.") Church Historic Sites Way back in the 1990s, I returned from my mission and found that my dad had purchased "LDS Infobases," a collection of Church history/doctrine publications and materials originally published in 1993 (with perhaps other iterations published earlier than that). I was amazed at having access to something like 1,800 books on these discs, all searchable! Back then individual members really did have to go "looking for scholarship," but for the last many decades there has been a huge improvement in readily-available resources, including various free resources published by the Church which - as Bushman put it - "reconstruct" and improve past recitations of our history. I think this has some application to the teaching of our doctrine as well. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: If these contain errors, then the LDS Church has led its members astray for almost 200 years … and counting. Prior to the error correction in 2020, the LDS Church has just continued propagating what was previously taught as "truth" by former LDS leaders. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "led its members astray." 7 minutes ago, theplains said: I think cultural sensitivities pushed the church to change course in 1978. I think there was a lot more to it than that. See, e.g., these comments of mine from 2018 (regarding the Priesthood Ban) : Quote According to Prince's book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pres. McKay was evaluating the issue extensively as early as 1954 (p. 103), and continued to grapple with it for many years afterward. Prince also states that Pres. McKay "made a conscious decision not to enter the fray of the emerging civil rights movement that came of age during his presidency," (p. 104), and yet you here seem to be positioning the Civil Rights movement as a key motivating factor for the 1978 revelation ("I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle"). Prince goes on to say that "{o}n several occasions ... [Pres. McKay] had opportunities to reverse the church's long-standing legacy of racial discrimination. Yet each time he chose to turn away" (p. 104). He also states that Pres. McKay "softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal ... On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death. This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests" (p. 106). This is also quite illuminating (p. 103): Quote His earliest inquiry, as far as we have record ... occurred in 1954 ... Other inquiries followed, though generally the dates are not known. On one occasion his daughter-in-law, Mildred Calderwood McKay, who served on the general board of the Primary ... expressed her anguish that black male children, who commingled with white children during their Primary years (through age twelve), were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood when they turned twelve. "Can't they be ordained also?" She asked. He replied sadly, "No." "Then I think it is time for a new revelation." He answered, "So do I." Marian D. Hanks ... related an incident from a [] trip to Vietname, in which he had comforted a woulded black LDS soldier. As he told the story, McKay began to weep. Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer." Prince also provides this fascinating account (p. 104): Quote But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970: Quote I remember one day that President McKay came into the office. We could see that he was very much distressed. He said, "I've had it! I'm not going to do it again!" Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro. I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone." This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men. The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now. By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone." You seem to be suggesting that the Civil Rights Movement was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation, and you cite Prince as your source. But Prince's citations about McKay's efforts to rescind the ban have it starting around 1954 (if not earlier), when the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy. Meanwhile, the revelation came in 1978, fourteen years after the Civil Rights Movement was at its apex (1964). And more to the point, Prince characterizes Pres. McKay as having "built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests," and this foundation was built by repeatedly seeking revelatory guidance. Prince seems to have very little to say about Pres. McKay (the president of the Church during the entirety of the Civil Rights Era) being influenced by the "pretty big spectacle" of "activism for blacks receiving the priesthood." Furthermore, Edward Kimball traces efforts to address the ban back to 1948 (pp. 18-19). Thoughts? 7 minutes ago, theplains said: Quote Could you then explain why you are claiming that the Church "continues to teach in its seminary manuals" items which were addressed in 2020 by Elder Stevenson in 2020 and removed from the current (2024) version? Noted. I will reword that claim when the LDS Church removes the error, which leads people astray. Why was it found in manuals and books prior to 2020? Because the LDS Church continued to teach what previous LDS Presidents and apostles taught as "truth". If you can show me where Joseph Fielding Smith and others taught it as opinion, speculation, or theory, then let me know with specific words of his or theirs to that effect. See above. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: Consider another false teaching: "… a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray: The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God" (Gospel Principles). I am happy to listen to what you have to say on this point. It appears that you are inferring notions of prophetic/apostolic infallibility, and that any demonstrated flaw or error in their actions and words amounts to "lead{ing} the Church astray." For this conversation to be effective, I think you will need to define and explain, rather than presuppose, these things. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: Quote What are your thoughts about Ben Spackman's comments about "infallible" manuals (or, errors leading some to consider manuals to be infallible)? I would say that one error does not make an entire manual fallible. Okay. What does make "an entire manual fallible"? What manuals do you believe to be "entire{ly} ... fallible"? 7 minutes ago, theplains said: The article "Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine" (May 4, 2007) says it more directly: "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal… opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church". A healthy pattern is to listen respectfully, then check teachings against the standard works and what the First Presidency and Twelve consistently teach, and seek your own confirmation from the Holy Ghost. Some key phrases are "necessarily constitutes", "a single statement", "a single leader", and "a single occasion". It's a different story when false teachings have persisted for almost 200 years. It's more like multiple similar teachings made by multiple leaders on multiple occasions. Okay. I guess this goes back to the presuppositions about leading the Church astray. I'd like to better understand your perspective on that. 7 minutes ago, theplains said: The present day LDS Church tries to clean up these errors from time to time. Instead of labelling those people as false teachers, they are relegated to men teaching things as opinions, speculations, or theories. What do you think defines a "false teacher"? Do you differentiate between a "false teacher" and a person who harbors some errors in their understanding of doctrine? If so, how? I appreciate your input. Thanks, -Smac 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now