LDS Church removes racial references in Book of Mormon headings

[Libs]

Very good changes, IMO.

[mbh26]

I don't strain at problematic scriptures near as much as I used to. I live by personal revelation through the Holy Ghost. If one wants to claim I have been deceived and erred in my revelation, than everything I'm told to read is subject to the same criticism, at least from my perspective.

The Church said one thing once and now they say another. Have they received further light and knowledge? Is it just better to change it so more people will join and benefit from the more critical teachings? They didn't tell us why they changed it. They just changed it. What range of beliefs does Mormonism have room for? I guess the only way to know is whether they stop you and say you can't say that when teaching a class, or if they deny you a temple recommend. Otherwise, I guess you can preach a lot of different things and still be LDS. And what you can believe privately, I still don't know what the limit is on that. It seems like an infinite maze of possibilities and perspectives.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The example in the OP was actually one of the changes Joseph made in the 1840 edition. The 1981 edition restored that edit. The addotions of "son of" before God in some scriptures are also edits made by Joseph. See here: http://en.fairmormon...22the_Son_of%22 They don't actually change the meaning, but instead are clarifications from the translator.

I guess that is where we differ... I don't believe that just because Joseph did something that it he was inspired to do it. You say it was for clarification- if God wanted it that way wouldn't He have given it to Joseph that way?

[Lars Umlaut]

I think you mean you couldn't care less, meaning you care so little that you couldn't possibly care less. If you could care less that would mean you have an unspecified amount of room for less caring, and thus that you care to some extent.

Wow. How petty.

[etana]

Glad to hear this. I'd like to see more of the headings "freshened-up". Some seemingly miss the point of the chapters.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wow. How petty.

Petty/Pet Peeve: not a huge difference, but a difference nevertheless.

[dougtheavenger]

Here:

Thoughts?

-Smac

All Christian denominations and all Jewish denominations acknowlege that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood had or has a lineage requiremnent. Jews who purport to hold the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood do so solely on the basis of lineage. For Jews, men whos fathers were priests are priests. There is no other requirement. All Christians, including LDS, accept this as being valid during some period in the past.

[dougtheavenger]

Here:

Thoughts?

-Smac

Research by two British scientists has documented a modern day phenomanon similar to that described by Nephi (or was in Jacob) in the Book of Mormon. This phenomanon occurred among a group of Yemenite Jews called Habbani. Like the Lehites, Habbani are descended from a small number of patrilineages; 5 (I think) as compared to 3 for Lehites. Like the Lamanites and Nephites, they diverged in 2 or 3 generations into 2 groups noticably dissimilar in color; one group being much darker than the other. Feel free to google the citation below.

referance:

Towne & Hulse, Generational change in skin color variation among Habbani Yemeni Jews | Hum Biol. 1990 Feb; 62(1):85-100

[CQUIRK]

...Chapter summaries were added in the 1920s, then rewritten by the late LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie in 1981...

Unfortunately I have to admit this, but Brother McConkie has said and written many, many, things which he ended up having to put his foot in his mouth afterwards, and would be doing so today if he were still around.

[jadams_4242]

I could care less what they do with the chapter headings, it is the fiddling with the verses, as given by God to Joseph Smith, that bothers me.

We should always keep in mind that althought j.s was receiving revealations; sometimes the simple enormity of it all probably did cause human frailties to surface a few times hear and there..Not one single apostle or prophet in the bible was perfect... the apostle paul cut off the ear of someone, he denied Christ 3 times even though he walked with him sevearl times e;t;c.......j.s was not perfect and was subject to and fell victom of mental pressure,desire,imagination,confusion, just any of us would have done,holding him to a higher standard of perfect than everybody else is quite simply wrong; we should not ever try to claim otherwise; he was and is a prophet of God just as is Moses,Peter,James,John and so on.. not one of them was perfect neither is j.s.

[Lightbearer]

The Church has every right to change chapter headings in the scriptures to reflect the needs and understandings of todays world. However the idea of "backpeddling" on racist ideas is ridiculous for the simple reason none ever existed. Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason skin color an racial differences are mentioned in the Book of Mormon are because it was known that this would be an important subject in the world today. I have never interpreted the Lamanite and Nephite race relations in the Book to be anything but to show that these differences, prejudices, and problems can be overcome with the living of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Notice that after Christ restores the Gospel in third Nephi that the racial differences disappear and they become a united people. Also note that the Lamanites (while intially cursed because of their fathers) become even more faithful and righteous than the Nephites and that Samuel the Lamanite is sent to the rebellious Nephites. So to me the Book of Mormon is a witness that God is not respecter of persons but instead judges us by the "content of our character rather than the color of our skins."

[evangelist]

While I don't think the changes will make a huge difference to most members of the church, I think this is a great move by the church. Kudos to those responsible for making the decision to do so.

Darin

Who put the racial doctrine in the BOM or mormon doctrine any ways??

I though the BOm is infallible and also the prophets or presidents??

one love

[bluebell]

Who put the racial doctrine in the BOM or mormon doctrine any ways??

The issue of this thread is the chapter headings (summaries of each chapter put just before the first verse). These are not considered part of the text of the BOM.

I though the BOm is infallible and also the prophets or presidents??

one love

If you thought that then it's a good thing you are here so that you can be corrected.

It is NOT the doctrine of the LDS church that prophets/presidents or the BOM are infallible.

[Bernard Gui]

The fundamental flaw in this discussion is the charge of racism.

Nephites and Lamanites were of the same race, and by the time

Jesus came to the land, there were no "skins of blackness" (whatever

that meant) among them. This is not to say that there were not splinter

Lamanite groups who left the area and formed their own nations, but at

least among the people of the book, 1) it was not racial, 2) it had

ended 400 years before the book closes, and as has already been

pointed out, the most righteous people in the book were at times

Lamanite.

Bernard

[Libs]

That God would give evil people a dark skin does have racial overtones, though. That was one of the things that had me questioning the origin of the Book of Mormon, because it seems to reflect 19th century thinking, that the Mark of Cain was dark skin.

[Balzer]

Here:

Thoughts?

-Smac

1. Wasn't the Book of Mormon supposed to be "the most correct book ever written?" If so, how can any changes be necessary or justified?

2. The really interesting thing about these particular changes is whether or not they were the product of revelation.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[mapman]

That God would give evil people a dark skin does have racial overtones, though. That was one of the things that had me questioning the origin of the Book of Mormon, because it seems to reflect 19th century thinking, that the Mark of Cain was dark skin.

If Joseph wrote it, why would he say that the Lamanites were given "a skin of blackness" (2 Nephi 5:21)? Even he would know that Indians don't have black skin. If it was a 19th century production I would expect it to say "a skin of redness." It makes me wonder whether these references to skin color aren't quite literal.

[Libs]

If Joseph wrote it, why would he say that the Lamanites were given "a skin of blackness" (2 Nephi 5:21)? Even he would know that Indians don't have black skin. If it was a 19th century production I would expect it to say "a skin of redness." It makes me wonder whether these references to skin color aren't quite literal.

Most Indians do have dark skin, though..not really red..although, I know that's how many whites described them, back then (as red skins).

Also, I don't really know that Joseph wrote it. Could have been someone else.

[CQUIRK]

Who put the racial doctrine in the BOM or mormon doctrine any ways??

The Old Testament has a lot of stuff in there that could be considered racist as well.

Did you that only a certain Israeli tribe could hold the Aaronic Priesthood back then? No other Israelis or other races could hold it.

I though the BOm is infallible and also the prophets or presidents??

They only changed the description of each chapter, not the words or the verses of the scriptures themselves.

Now I'll pose you these questions- how can you consider the Bible to be closed when the KJV doesn't include the Apocrypha, and to the Churches that do include parts of the Apocrypha in their Bibles, why do they include and exclude different parts of it?

And no need to bring up the other lost books and chapters that were not included in any version of the bible period.

http://en.wikipedia....ks_of_the_Bible

OR the fact that you have dozens upon dozens of different versions of the bible that are written or translated differently, so which bible are we talking about here that's closed cannon and imperfect? The Vulgate? The New International Version? The New Century Version?

The EV argument for closed cannon and a perfect bible is so flawed and easily refuted, that the simpleton ignorance for EV's to still champion such pathetic notions is almost no better then the Wahhabist Muslims championing the distorted, warped verses of the Koran that justify militant action and hate, even though many of such verses are based on loose interpretation and are open to question.

Knock off the name calling....Nemesis

[cinepro]

Unfortunately I have to admit this, but Brother McConkie has said and written many, many, things which he ended up having to put his foot in his mouth afterwards, and would be doing so today if he were still around.

Other than his comments on whether blacks would ever have the priesthood in this life, what things did he end up "having to put his foot in his mouth afterwards"?

[LeSellers]

1. Wasn't the Book of Mormon supposed to be "the most correct book ever written?" If so, how can any changes be necessary or justified?

A reasonable interpretation of Joseph's statement shows that he did not mean that the words were perfect, but that the principles the Book of Mormon reveal are the most correct. Here's the quote:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by [those in] any other book.

So, there could be a myriad of changes in the wording, the punctuation, and the headings (which are the subject of this topic) and there would be no difference in the correctness of the book of Mormon.

2. The really interesting thing about these particular changes is whether or not they were the product of revelation.

They were not, as many have already attested here.

The chapter headings and the introduction were not part of the original text on the plates, nor in the first or several subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon.

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

That God would give evil people a dark skin does have racial overtones, though. That was one of the things that had me questioning the origin of the Book of Mormon, because it seems to reflect 19th century thinking, that the Mark of Cain was dark skin.

Within the context of the Book of Mormon, it is not racist. The Lamanites have nothing to do with Cain.

Bernard

[MichaelM]

Within the context of the Book of Mormon, it is not racist. The Lamanites have nothing to do with Cain.

Bernard

It is not racist because it has nothing to do with Cain? I always found the dark skin passages in the Book of Mormon to be a problem and I never associated it with Cain. Back in the 60s I would ask why, if man is punished for his own sins but not for Adam's transgression, why the American Indian child is born with the mark of a curse for sins these newborn babies never committed. Only when they become LDS is the curse lifted (but nowdays their skin will not turn white). That sure seems racist.

[Libs]

Within the context of the Book of Mormon, it is not racist. The Lamanites have nothing to do with Cain.

Bernard

Yes, I know. I only brought up the curse of Cain as a possible comparison to what happened to the Lamanites, in the Book of Mormon. God cursing with a dark skin, in both cases (at least that was a belief that was held in the 19th and even 20th century, regarding the curse of Cain)..

I do understand what you're talking about, as far as the Nephites and Lamanites being of the same race. That's exactly how I used to explain (to anyone who questioned) why the skin of darkness was not actually related to race. The dark and light have to do with the state of one's spirit or soul. Has nothing to do with race.

It just seemed to me that it was possible that the use of skin color, to make that spiritual comparison, could have come from a 19th century mind (considering beliefs about the curse of Cain).

[orion88]

So to me the Book of Mormon is a witness that God is not respecter of persons but instead judges us by the "content of our character rather than the color of our skins."

Yes. But the content of the character of some BOM people was visibly evident

by the curse of their dark skin.

In Alma 3:6-7, it is recorded that 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."

Tony