Jump to content

Darkness in Americas at the time of the Crucifixion


Uncle Dale

Recommended Posts

I'm actually talking more about the ethnic identity of the American Indians as actually/literally being the Lamanites. And I am also talking about the earliest years, primarily, from 1830 -->

You can't separate the geography from the "ethnic identity". That is why the LGT is such a thorn in the side of anti-Mormons and why they continue to pretend it is a recent development. We are accustomed to your failure to ackowledge any source that contradicts the conclusion you started with.....but it is very poor form to continue to ignore a source when it is put in front of you in public.

Link to comment
I'm actually talking more about the ethnic identity of the American Indians as actually/literally being the Lamanites. And I am also talking about the earliest years, primarily, from 1830 -->

In that case:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=506

Lamanite. Like the term Nephite, the term Lamanite has a number of different meanings in scripture.38 It can refer to the following:

Actual descendants of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael who followed Laman's leadership after the death of Lehi (2 Nephi 5:1â??6). Modern revelation indicates that among Lamanites today are some, yet to be revealed, who are descendants of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael and that they will one day receive a knowledge of the gospel (D&C 3:18).

Those who did not believe in the warnings and revelations of God through Nephi (2 Nephi 5:6).

Those not friendly to Nephi or the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:14; Jacob 1:13-14).

Those who rejected and did not believe in the records and traditions of the Nephites (Alma 3:11).

Those who intermarried with the Lamanites (Alma 3:9, 15).

Those who fought against the Nephites (Alma 3:16).

Any who dissented from the Nephites (Alma 3:17).

Any led away by the Lamanites (Alma 3:10).

Those who rejected the teachings of Christ, together with their children and ideological sympathizers (4 Nephi 1:38).

After the destruction of the Nephites as a cohesive group, the seed of anyone who at any time had once been numbered with the "people of Nephi" (Alma 45:13; cf. 45:14).

Sorry, Richard, but to me the Book of Mormon text trumps what early Latter-day Saints may have thought about the Book of Mormon text.

BTW, I notice that you failed to fully quote what other Latter-day Saints contemporary with George Reynolds were also saying about Indian/Lamanite ancestry. I also notice that you misrepresented what FAIR was arguing in that article you linked.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Amerindians_as_Lamanites

Hmmm... now why would that be? Surely Richard Abanes is not guilty of selectively quoting those who agree with his a priori assumptions. Such is unheard of! :P

Link to comment
...

the Book of Mormon text trumps what early Latter-day Saints

may have thought about the Book of Mormon text....

...

Sounds reasonable to me.

Which, amongst the various types of "Lamanites" so listed, had the cursed

"skin of blackness;" and which amongst them were forbidden to Nephites '

for to "mingle their seed" ???

UD

Link to comment
Which, amongst the various types of "Lamanites" so listed, had the cursed

"skin of blackness;" and which amongst them were forbidden to Nephites '

for to "mingle their seed" ???

Well, considering that the "skin of blackness" seems to be applied by Nephi to the direct seed of Laman and Lemuel, I would vouch for No. 1.

Link to comment
Sounds reasonable to me.

Which, amongst the various types of "Lamanites" so listed, had the cursed

"skin of blackness;" and which amongst them were forbidden to Nephites '

for to "mingle their seed" ???

Is this a rhetorical question intended for mockery? You couldn't possibly have missed the many, many, many discussions on how "black" is used anciently. The only way to gain ground with this is with the claim JS wrote it so as to pull modern racism into it. That is a nonstarter if you are asking LDS that question which brings me back to....was this a rhetorical quesiton for effect?

Link to comment
Is this a rhetorical question intended for mockery? You couldn't possibly have missed the many, many, many discussions on how "black" is used anciently. The only way to gain ground with this is with the claim JS wrote it so as to pull modern racism into it. That is a nonstarter if you are asking LDS that question which brings me back to....was this a rhetorical quesiton for effect?

The poster directed me back to the Book of Mormon, and not to various writers'

interpretations thereof.

When I read the book, looking for distinguishing features of Lamanites, I see

that the Nephites were forbidden to have sexual intercourse with them. Thus,

I suppose that Nephites generally could distinguish who was, and who was not,

a Lamanite, by some sort of careful observation.

Am I wrong?

UD

Link to comment
The poster directed me back to the Book of Mormon, and not to various writers'

interpretations thereof.

When I read the book, looking for distinguishing features of Lamanites, I see

that the Nephites were forbidden to have sexual intercourse with them. Thus,

I suppose that Nephites generally could distinguish who was, and who was not,

a Lamanite, by some sort of careful observation.

Am I wrong?

UD

Probably. Brant has noted more than one incident where identification by observation in life threatening situations obviously wasn't a factor. I dont' think it would be difficult to identify a member of a covenental community...but it would not be by how they looked unless they were wearing symbolic clothing or something. As the BOM people intermarried and came in and out of the religion, it would become impossible to identify people by their bodies.

Link to comment

From the book, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith -

"The Book of Mormon has made known who Israel is, upon this continent. And while we behold the government of the United States gathering the Indians, and locating them upon lands to be their own, how sweet it is to think that they may one day be gathered by the gospel."

Where we end up, when it is all said and done, is that both sides are dependent on reason, and reason alone, to reach a conclusion.

Where there is no revelation, is there really an option to exercise faith in anything other than the arm of flesh? and isn't this why critics are often ridiculed for relying on reason when it comes to the BoM?

But in this case, is there really any difference?

Link to comment
From the book, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith -

"The Book of Mormon has made known who Israel is, upon this continent. And while we behold the government of the United States gathering the Indians, and locating them upon lands to be their own, how sweet it is to think that they may one day be gathered by the gospel."

Where we end up, when it is all said and done, is that both sides are dependent on reason, and reason alone, to reach a conclusion.

Where there is no revelation, is there really an option to exercise faith in anything other than the arm of flesh? and isn't this why critics are often ridiculed for relying on reason when it comes to the BoM?

But in this case, is there really any difference?

Yes. I haven't seen critics ridiculed for using "reason". It is those who use reason to ridicule believers that are disliked.

Link to comment
You can't separate the geography from the "ethnic identity". That is why the LGT is such a thorn in the side of anti-Mormons and why they continue to pretend it is a recent development. We are accustomed to your failure to acknowledge any source that contradicts the conclusion you started with.....but it is very poor form to continue to ignore a source when it is put in front of you in public.
I'm sorry, dear juliann, but according to FAIR, "The LGT is not a doctrine of the Church and there is no necessity to accept it as the only interpretation of the Book of Mormon text."

So, I would really prefer to only stick with official doctrine, if that's okay with you. Can you please point to an official source for your LGT theory? Becuase I certainly have no official source for the HGT theory? Consequently, I'd prefer to stick with what was believed by the earliest Mormons who were closest to the creation of the Book of Mormon and knew Joseph Smith, God's Latter-day prophet. In fact, let's just go to Smith himself, shall we?

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them." (
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
, pg. 17).

Maybe Moroni would know:

[Moroni] told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (
, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76).

Wait, let's try Brigham Young:

"There is a curse on these aborigines of our country who roam the plains, and are so wild that you cannot tame them. They are of the House of Israel; they once had the Gospel delivered to them, they had the oracles of truth; Jesus came and administered to them after his resurrection, and they received and delighted in the Gospel until the fourth generation when they turned away and became so wicked that God cursed them with this dark and benighted and loathsome condition." (Discourses of Brigham Young, compiled by John A. Widtsoe, pages 122, 123)

Goodness, allof those wild Lamanites running around on the plains. How about Spencer W. Kimball:

"You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties. The Lord calls you Lamanites, a name which has a pleasant ring, for many of the grandest people ever to live upon the earth were so called. In a limited sense, the name signifies the descendants of Laman and Lemuel, sons of your first American parent, Lehi; but you undoubtedly possess also the blood of the other sons, Sam, Nephi, and Jacob. And you likely have some Jewish blood from Mulek, son of Zedekiah, king of Judah. The name Lamanite distinguishes you from other peoples. It is not a name of derision or embarrassment, but one of which to be very proud." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.596)

You can go with FAIR. I'll go with Smith, Young, Moroni and others -- unless you have something official from the Church or a living Prophet on the subject..............................................yeah, that's what I thought. As recently as 1971, however, if you'd like to refer to the "Special Lamanite Section" in the Ensign, that'd be fine. Here, I'll help:

"As we attempt to solve the complex puzzle we call life, there is a constant search for elements that will clarify the picture. For [Mormons] one of the keys to this great pattern of existence is the group of people known as Lamanites. Those not of the church call these people Indians, although the term actually refers to a broader group than that. Most members of the church know that the Lamanites, who consist of the Indians of all of the Americas as well as the islanders of the Pacific, are a people with a special heritage."

Anything official in contradiction yet you'd like to share, or just non-official opinions by FAIR? I din't know FAIR trumped Smith, Young, Kimball, and the Ensign.

RA

Link to comment
So, I would really prefer to only stick with official doctrine, if that's okay with you.

Okay, Richard, where has the Church made the HGT "official doctrine"? I would like to see a source. And no, Church leaders saying things does not make it official Church doctrine.

CFR.

BTW, if you ever get around to reading the links I provided, you'll see that most of those quotes have been shown to not contradict a LGT.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you don't look at it. After all, this pharisaic game of quoting past LDS Church leaders to try and contradict modern ones is a favored past time by anti-Mormons.

Link to comment
Okay, Richard, where has the Church made the HGT "official doctrine"? I would like to see a source. And no, Church leaders saying things does not make it official Church doctrine.
hey, Romm. I thought I made clear what point Iw as tyring to make, but guess not. So here, as edited above:

"Can you please point to an official source for your LGT theory? Becuase I certainly have no official source for the HGT theory? Consequently, I'd prefer to stick with what was believed by the earliest Mormons who were closest to the creation of the
Book of Mormon
and knew Joseph Smith, God's Latter-day prophet. In fact, let's just go to Smith himself, shall we?"

In the absence of ANY official statements, let's go back to the source -- God's Latter-day prophet who holds the keys to rule in the spirit world, the first Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of our modern era. Not Juliann, Scott Gordon, or even DCP.

RA

Link to comment
Yes. I haven't seen critics ridiculed for using "reason". It is those who use reason to ridicule believers that are disliked.

Certainly, you have seen a critic criticized for relying on the arm of the flesh based on nothing other than for their allowing reason to trump faith in some question. Unless one applies a very loose definition to the word "ridicule", meaning that to disagree and point out why is to ridicule, I can't imagine that this is always the case.

But beyond that, I do not see a real difference between saying, "I disagree with the beliefs of the early church leaders regarding the ancestry of the native americans because I don't see the narrative of the BoM being true based on X and Y" and saying "Even though I believe the BoM to be scripture from God, I disagree with the opinions of the early church leaders regarding the ancestry of the native americans because of X and Y."

Both are saying, in effect, that reason dictates some aspects of what was considered revelation by early church leaders are, in fact, wrong. Some just are more selective than others.

Link to comment
BTW, if you ever get around to reading the links I provided, you'll see that most of those quotes have been shown to not contradict a LGT. But I wouldn't be surprised if you don't look at it. After all, this pharisaic game of quoting past LDS Church leaders to try and contradict modern ones is a favored past time by anti-Mormons.
You know it's comments like this that actually make me wish Joseph were alive to deal with you, and Brigham, too. Dare I say you'd be "cut off" along with everyone on this board. Joseph wouldn't even recognize the church's beliefs, or the Book of Mormon, if he were alive today.

RA

Link to comment
Probably. Brant has noted more than one incident where identification by observation in life threatening situations obviously wasn't a factor. I dont' think it would be difficult to identify a member of a covenental community...but it would not be by how they looked unless they were wearing symbolic clothing or something. As the BOM people intermarried and came in and out of the religion, it would become impossible to identify people by their bodies.

I was imagining a more intimate scene -- one in which "seed mingling" was a developing possibility,

and where one of the two persons involved (Nephite) came to realize that the other person was of the

"forbidden" group (Lamanite).

The way I imagined this happening was that one person in a marriage fell into apostasy and

became a "Lamanite" without informing the spouse of that terrible change in self-identification.

How might the spouse recognize the change, prior to "seed-mingling"???

Perhaps it would be accompanied by some outward, discernible change -- one which we might

(or might not) describe as a "skin of blackness."

Again, I was directed to the book itself -- and not to Brant -- for examples/answers.

UD

Link to comment

Intresting...

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).

Link to comment
hey, Romm. I thought I made clear what point Iw as tyring to make, but guess not. So here, as edited above:

"Can you please point to an official source for your LGT theory? Becuase I certainly have no official source for the HGT theory? Consequently, I'd prefer to stick with what was believed by the earliest Mormons who were closest to the creation of the
Book of Mormon
and knew Joseph Smith, God's Latter-day prophet. In fact, let's just go to Smith himself, shall we?"

In the absence of ANY official statements, let's go back to the source -- God's Latter-day prophet who holds the keys to rule in the spirit world, the first Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of our modern era. Not Juliann, Scott Gordon, or even DCP.

RA

The problem is that you are assuming that Joseph Smith supports your views or that he viewed a HGT. As Roper pointed out, and as you seem to be oblivious to, his words could be used to support a LGT and it could be argued that his views on BoM geography changed into a LGT one.

Oh, that and the Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography. :P

Link to comment
You know it's comments like this that actually make me wish Joseph were alive to deal with you, and Brigham, too. Dare I say you'd be "cut off" along with everyone on this board. Joseph wouldn't even recognize the church's beliefs, or the Book of Mormon, if he were alive today.

RA

Hmm... so first you say that a poster would be a nice addition to the MMM and now you are insinuating that I would be "cut off" (via blood atonement?). Okay, well, whatever fuels your little paranoid worldview.

Oh, and might I say that your training from the Fawn M. Brodie Institute of Psychology is really paying off. Well done.

Link to comment

Uncle Dale:

Perhaps I should clarify.

I do not for one moment assume that the Book of Mormon can interpret itself. I am not a Book of Mormon sola scriptora proponent. However, I also don't think that we can bank off of what people may assume what the Book of Mormon teaches or says; even if those people are Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. For example, I fully believe that some of the early brethren were wrong in their interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography, etc. Why? Because our understanding of the Book of Mormon and its ancient cultural context has increased with new knowledge and new understanding. Does that compromise the early brethren as Prophets and Apostles? No. However, does their priesthood office mean that they are automatically right about their views on Book of Mormon geography or that their assumptions about the text are automatically right? No.

Does that make more sense? In other words, commentators like Brant and John Sorenson are, in my opinion, more qualified to make pronouncements on things like BoM geography because of our increased knowledge and understanding of the Book of Mormon text itself and other relevant issues.

Now when it comes to doctrinal issues, that is an entirely different subject.

Link to comment
Again, I was directed to the book itself -- and not to Brant -- for examples/answers.

UD

Brant was using examples from the BOM. And I'm sure you realize the social distinctions were not just a matter of "waking up in the morning and not believing" so it seems you are just trying to yank somebody's chain with the sarcasm.

Link to comment
...

Does that make more sense?

...

Of course it does -- and when you take the time to explain things, I think most

of us can agree that you are one of the more thoughtful contributors here.

The problem I have, in imagining different varieties of Lamanities, is that the

term appears to originate in a prohibition against "faithful" Nephites having

intercourse with "apostate" Lamanites --- thus we read of some distinguishing

feature, which some in the past have compared to the "mark" set upon Cain.

Some sort of discernible change/difference between a Lamanite and a Nephite.

Then, as the story goes on, we begin to see all the varieties of Lamanites

previously here listed.

I agree that their was some some of evolution in the designation of Lamanite;

an evolution that reaches to the point of there being good Lamanites and

bad Nephites.

Then, as 3rd Nephi progresses into 4th Nephi, we read of a situation in which

there are no Lamanites at all.

At that point, it seems safe to say that the original curse was lifted -- and that

Nephites were free to "mingle their seed" with all other persons, in legal

marriage unions.

The book itself is unclear about how the evolution came about, and exactly

how the prohibition on "seed mingling" is related to the "skin of blackness."

I could always ask the "Living Prophet" in Community of Christ" for some

inspired counsel, I suppose -- but I'm no longer on their members' rolls.

UD

.

Link to comment
You know it's comments like this that actually make me wish Joseph were alive to deal with you, and Brigham, too. Dare I say you'd be "cut off" along with everyone on this board. Joseph wouldn't even recognize the church's beliefs, or the Book of Mormon, if he were alive today.

RA

The idea that any religion has emerged unchanged from the 19th century is laughable. The people who pretend they can reconstruct such things are usually called fundatmentalists and even they do a poor job of it.

You have demonstrated little knowledge of what my church believes and your attempt to speak for our prophets is offensive...which seems to be your intent. Your skill is in very, very selective quote mining from former centuries when we are a church of living prophets. :P

Abanes is not a substitute for a church that has declared itself to be founded on living prophets and not quote mining.

Here we must have in mindâ??must knowâ??that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....

When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.

â??J. Rueben Clark, Jr. "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" Address to Seminary and Institute Teachers, BYU (7 July 1954); reproduced in Church News (31 July 1954); also reprinted in Dialogue 12/2 (Summer 1979): 68â??81.]

This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):

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, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

â??LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...