Should the Church "retire" the Pearl of Great Price?

[Joseph Antley]

Calmoriah, Nevo: that really seems to be a stretch, to me. The verse seems pretty clear that blacks are descendants of Cain. To read it (and other related scriptures) any other way seems to me trying to get it to say what you want it to say, or more precisely, to not say what you don't want it to say. But, you could be right. It's a possibility.

The verse says that the seed of Cain were black. I don't see how it's "pretty clear" that that means that all Africans are descended from Cain.

The Book of Mormon says that the skin of the Lamanites was black. By the same logic, it must be "pretty clear" that all Africans are descended from Laman and Lemuel.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The verse says that the seed of Cain were black. I don't see how it's "pretty clear" that that means that all Africans are descended from Cain.

The Book of Mormon says that the skin of the Lamanites was black. By the same logic, it must be "pretty clear" that all Africans are descended from Laman and Lemuel.

But Joseph! So-and-so teacher told me growing up that they are!

[Pahoran]

Perhaps the best thing to do is for the Brethren to tinker with the scriptures to bring them into conformity with the current Non-Racist (priesthood) policies of the Church today? Perhaps all these discrepensies could be collated and outsourced to the correlation department so they can tweak the scriptures to bring them up to date, and iron out the problems.

Is it necessary for your sarcasm to be that heavy-handed?

I don't see why not after all James E. Talmage was given permission by the Brethren to tinker with the scriptural cannon.

Call for references, please. When and where?

For example the recent, "The Lamanites, and they are "Among" (changed from they are the principal ancestors) the ancestors of the American Indians."

And a number of people had disagreed with the word "principal" as early as 1981.

But please note, in your immoderate glee, that even "principal" does not and never did mean "only."

When the Church brought out a commemorative Book of Commandments for nostalgic reasons they had to do a suddenly recall and withdraw it off the shelves of the Church's distribution centers, completely removing it from circulation, because too many members noticed scriptural tinkering when comparing it with D&C.

Call for references, please.

I really think the correlation department needs to alter and edit this stuff out otherwise threads and blogs like this start up on the internet pointing out the discrepancies and it's bad for Public Relations don't you guys agree?

I realise that you, along with most anti-Mormons, really are not capable of understanding this, but here goes: principles are now, and always have been, more important to us than PR.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Helmuth]

The verse says that the seed of Cain were black. I don't see how it's "pretty clear" that that means that all Africans are descended from Cain.

O.K., you're right, but it's not just one verse. Nor is it just one or a few General Authority statements. There's a very large volume of stuff that must be re-interpreted to get to the point where Africans are not Hamites! It just seems problematic to me, and why mount such a colossal revision when the original position is not problematic at all?

[cinepro]

Lets make a deal: If you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that the books in the Pearl of Great Price are not what they are claimed to be, I will be the first one to shout it out! TIME TO PUT THE BOOK OUT TO PASTURE

But you can't do it.

"Claimed to be" by whom? Official Church publications? Or unofficial apologetic publications?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I don't see why not after all James E. Talmage was given permission by the Brethren to tinker with the scriptural cannon.

[...]

Hi Eden*,

If you're referring to Dr. Talmage's editing of the Book of Moses, I think "tinker" is a very poor choice of word. Although his efforts did result in some errors (because of him inadvertently giving primacy to the periodical version over some manuscript versions, amongst other things), they were largely accurate to what Joseph Smith likely intended (as least as far as can be gathered from the RLDS manuscripts, and what the LDS already have/had). Could changes be made to bring them more in line with the current knowledge regarding the BoMoses manuscripts? Yes (one would be hard pressed to deny this). Would those changes drastically alter the previous version that is the result of Dr. Talmageâ??s work? I personally donâ??t think so.

If you're referring to something other than his work on the Book of Moses, sorry for the confusion. If you are referring to his work on the Book of Moses, I think you aren't giving him the due credit for how close to the Book of Moses (after Josephâ??s revisions) he was able to come.

[why me]

"Claimed to be" by whom? Official Church publications? Or unofficial apologetic publications?

Many might say that the PofGP was made by a fraud to consolidate his power. Either the book is what it is claimed to be or it isn't. It is no different from the book of mormon. If JS had a hand in falsehoods, the critics should conclusively prove it. So far I see no proof. Just attempts to shed doubt.

[Helmuth]

Just attempts to shed doubt.

Kamenraider, just to clarify, was not attempting to cast doubt on the PoGP. His call to retire it was an amusing tongue-in-cheek poke. This thread is really about another thread, and about the lineage of blacks in particular, and not about rescinding the PoGP.

Very possibly you already understood that, but I figured I'd point it out just in case.

[Saint Sinner]

(Joseph Smith, the translator of this passage, seems to have understood "black" to mean "negro", for he equated the two in History of the Church, Vol. 4, pg. 501: "Tuesday, 25.â??Signed deeds for lots, to Law; transacted a variety of business in the city and office. In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.")

So, do you think the Church should put the Pearl of Great Price out to pasture? I recognize there is much good in the book, but are there not better resources for modern LDS to find the "good" stuff without promoting the dissemination of racist doctrine in the process?

Absolutely! The PoGP has no religious merit. It is out of harmony with the OT. The Book of Abraham is the worst. The Book of Moses contains some truth but should be retired as well. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS to think that everyone in the hereafter (especially the 'celestial' kingdom) will be white people. Embalming and burial records do NOT constitute as scripture. The JS-H...that is a different story considering how many times it has been changed by JS himself and the varying recollections of people surrounding him at that time.

Saint Sinner

[cinepro]

Many might say that the PofGP was made by a fraud to consolidate his power. Either the book is what it is claimed to be or it isn't. It is no different from the book of mormon. If JS had a hand in falsehoods, the critics should conclusively prove it. So far I see no proof. Just attempts to shed doubt.

You said "not what they are claimed to be". Please clarify who is doing the claiming, since different people have made different claims regarding the origin of the Books of Abraham and Moses over the years. You could even provide quotes.

[juliann]

What is really scary is the number of people who are determined to read texts racially....and demand that is how everyone else should. When these people bring that standard to the Bible references to blackness they might have some credibility. There is just no excuse to read ancient texts racially anymore. The focus should be on those who want to.

[kamenraider]

...There is just no excuse to read ancient texts racially anymore. The focus should be on those who want to.

Aren't there some ancient texts that were meant to be read racially?

[freakin a man]

(Joseph Smith, the translator of this passage, seems to have understood "black" to mean "negro", for he equated the two in History of the Church, Vol. 4, pg. 501: "Tuesday, 25.â??Signed deeds for lots, to Law; transacted a variety of business in the city and office. In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.")

So, do you think the Church should put the Pearl of Great Price out to pasture? I recognize there is much good in the book, but are there not better resources for modern LDS to find the "good" stuff without promoting the dissemination of racist doctrine in the process?

I dont see any racism in it. If the statement is true than the statement is true. We need to be more concerned about being correct than politically correct. If the seed of cain was black in those days then it was black. If the seed of cain was orange then it was orange. I see nothing bad about something being black. One of dogs is mostly black and I love her to death.

[kamenraider]

I dont see any racism in it. If the statement is true than the statement is true. We need to be more concerned about being correct than politically correct. If the seed of cain was black in those days then it was black. If the seed of cain was orange then it was orange. I see nothing bad about something being black. One of dogs is mostly black and I love her to death.

I agree.

Also, in case you didn't notice post #15 above, I was being facetious about the PofGP being racist, alluding to cinepro's thread about whether or not Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine should be retired due to "racist" passages in it.

[AngelPalmoni]

Hahaha, I laugh in your general direction...

[juliann]

Aren't there some ancient texts that were meant to be read racially?

Are there? What did a modern idea of "race" mean to the ancients?

Also, in case you didn't notice post #15 above, I was being facetious about the PofGP being racist, alluding to cinepro's thread about whether or not Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine should be retired due to "racist" passages in it.

So promoting racialist readings of ancient texts is not supposed to be distinguished from the text itself? Enslaving Africans is a solid concept because the Bible was used to promote it? And that is....funny?

To pull this off you will need to uphold JS as author of the PoGP. Then the comparisons might be more appropriate.

[Helmuth]

I see nothing bad about something being black. One of [my] dogs is mostly black and I love her to death.

I love it!

The more normal thing to say to absolve oneself of accusations of racism would be "I have nothing against black people. One of my best friends is black".

But your variation is much, much funnier!

[kamenraider]

Are there? What did a modern idea of "race" mean to the ancients?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but "race" as an idea certainly isn't modern.

So promoting racialist readings of ancient texts is not supposed to be distinguished from the text itself? Enslaving Africans is a solid concept because the Bible was used to promote it? And that is....funny?

To pull this off you will need to uphold JS as author of the PoGP. Then the comparisons might be more appropriate.

Who said that enslaving Africans is funny? I sure didn't. Slavery was allowed though under OT law.

I uphold Joseph Smith as translator of the PofGP (on which McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is, in part, based).

If he was mistaken about the "sons of Cain" being "negroes", then it would imply that he didn't understand what he himself translated. I can't imagine anyone in antebellum America getting any other meaning than this from "the seed of Cain were black", either.

[Eden*]

Is it necessary for your sarcasm to be that heavy-handed?

Call for references, please. When and where?

And a number of people had disagreed with the word "principal" as early as 1981.

But please note, in your immoderate glee, that even "principal" does not and never did mean "only."

Call for references, please.

I realise that you, along with most anti-Mormons, really are not capable of understanding this, but here goes: principles are now, and always have been, more important to us than PR.

Regards,

Pahoran

Your right perhaps my sarcasm was not necessary & yes principal does not and never did mean only, which gives less reason to change it I suppose. Thank you for labeling me Pahoran your too kind. As for principles vs PR in priority well I do not know the answer to that, sometimes I honestly cannot discern which it is.

Hi Eden*,

If you're referring to Dr. Talmage's editing of the Book of Moses, I think "tinker" is a very poor choice of word. Although his efforts did result in some errors (because of him inadvertently giving primacy to the periodical version over some manuscript versions, amongst other things), they were largely accurate to what Joseph Smith likely intended (as least as far as can be gathered from the RLDS manuscripts, and what the LDS already have/had). Could changes be made to bring them more in line with the current knowledge regarding the BoMoses manuscripts? Yes (one would be hard pressed to deny this). Would those changes drastically alter the previous version that is the result of Dr. Talmageâ??s work? I personally donâ??t think so.

If you're referring to something other than his work on the Book of Moses, sorry for the confusion. If you are referring to his work on the Book of Moses, I think you aren't giving him the due credit for how close to the Book of Moses (after Josephâ??s revisions) he was able to come.

Thank you for your information Dr. Steuss, yes this is what I was referring to, and yes I agree with you. I remember learning that the Prophet at the time (Brigham Young?) did not trust their manuscript for the pearl of great price. Most LDS do not realize we had to carefully barter with the RLDS to get the Book of Moses.