LDS Church removes racial references in Book of Mormon headings

[Pahoran]

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?

The chapter headings in question not part of the text to which Joseph referred. How do we know this? Because not only the chapter headings, but the chapter and verse divisions now in use were never part of the revealed text, and did not exist in Joseph's lifetime. Thus, they were simply not under discussion at any time when Joseph was speaking to anyone at all about the Book of Mormon.

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

Respectfully,

Balzer

Why should they be?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bikeemikey]

I think it is about time we got rid of the chapter headings completely. They have been a misleading and unnecessary part of our scriptures that have steered interpretation on understanding in the direction of a few individuals who were put in the position to interpret whole chapters of scripture and place their personal views in front of every Book of Mormon reader for the past many years.

Also with active search now footnotes and indexes in the paper text, which are in some instances curiously incomplete, could probably be dropped and save a bit on printing costs.

[Bikeemikey]

Delete - accidental double post.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

That was my response to someone who raised the issue of Cain.

The "dark skin passages" in the Book of Mormon cannot be racist, because Nephites and Lamanites

were all descendants of Lehi, Zoram, and Mulek, not separate races. By the time of Jesus' visit there were no more "dark

skins." In fact, many of the most righteous people in the Book of Mormon were Lamanites. That is the

context of the "dark skin" issue.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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).

400 years before the end of the Book of Mormon, Lehites were united back into one people, and there was no more

curse or sign of the curse (the dark skin, whatever that was). The final division between Lamanite and Nephite was

political and religious, not familial, and certainly not racist.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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."

But that curse (to be cut of from the presence of God) and its mark (the dark skin,

whatever that meant), disappeared upon the visit of Christ. See my immediately

preceding post.

Bernard

[Bikeemikey]

But that curse (to be cut of from the presence of God) and its mark (the dark skin,

whatever that meant), disappeared upon the visit of Christ. See my immediately

preceding post.

Bernard

I am unsure how you reach that conclusion. I may have missed the earlier reference. Can you please provide that for me.

Cheers.

[Libs]

400 years before the end of the Book of Mormon, Lehites were united back into one people, and there was no more

curse or sign of the curse (the dark skin, whatever that was). The final division between Lamanite and Nephite was

political and religious, not familial, and certainly not racist.

Bernard

My question was really about the origin of the book, not about whether or not it was racist.

[Gohan]

I am unsure how you reach that conclusion. I may have missed the earlier reference. Can you please provide that for me.

Cheers.

I think you can probably pin it down to 4th Nephi l:17

17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

As well as 4 Nephi 1:36-38

36 And it came to pass that in this year there arose a people who were called the Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them there were those who were called by the Lamanites

[Bernard Gui]

They were all intermingled at that part, lineage not being a real part of it. I can't find mention of it after Christ's visit to the Americas, please point it out, I only did a brief scan.

When they divided into Nephites and Lamanites after the visit of Jesus, it was along social, religious, and political lines.

4 Nephi 26

And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get

gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ

4 Nephi 35-42

...in the two hundred and thirty and first year, there was a great division among the people...in this year

there arose a people who were called Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them

there were those who were called by the Lamanites - Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites. Therefore,

the true worshipers of Christ...were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites...they

who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

The resurgence of the Gadianton clan in verse 46 sealed the doom of the Nephites as described in Mormon's book.

The people to whom Mormon and Moroni dedicated their books were a mixture of all the peoples of the Book,

not just descendants of Laman and Lemuel. If today's Native Americans are descended from the people of the Book,

they share the common ancestors Lehi, Mulek, Zoram, and Ishmael.

Bernard

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't believe that just because Joseph did something that it he was inspired to do it.

Hmm. Would that include the quotes the Meldrumites cherry pick to support their pet theory about Book of Mormon geography? (I tried hard, but I just couldn't resist that one. )

You say it was for clarification- if God wanted it that way wouldn't He have given it to Joseph that way?

Depends on whether you believe he was given strictly a word-for-word, rote transcription, or whether he was given concepts via revelation which he then expressed in the language at his disposal, or whether it was some combination of the two. If you hold to either of the latter two options, there is nothing at all inappropriate about the prophet

[evangelist]

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.

I second that!

I still didn't get an answer about how a so called christian church or church that follow Christ could invent such a thing.

I am glad at least God has no respect of person!

Was the mormon at one point a supporter of slavery??

one love

[evangelist]

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

Good observation!

[Scott Lloyd]

I second that!

I still didn't get an answer about how a so called christian church or church that follow Christ could invent such a thing.

I am glad at least God has no respect of person!

Was the mormon at one point a supporter of slavery??

No. And Mormon congregations were never segregated as were many Protestant congregations, right up until the latter part of the 20th Century. By your logic how could said Protestant churches be Christian and countenance segregation?

[Pahoran]

I second that!

I still didn't get an answer about how a so called christian church or church that follow Christ could invent such a thing.

I am glad at least God has no respect of person!

Was the mormon at one point a supporter of slavery??

one love

Since there has never been just one "mormon"[sic] at any time in history, I presume that you meant to ask "Mormon Church."

In which case, the answer is no. The members in general were always opposed to slavery.

There was one rather significant Protestant body that was started for the purpose of supporting slavery; that particular body has always been rather venomously opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Good observation!

Only among those who know nothing at all about LDS history, doctrine and scripture.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Only among those who know nothing at all about LDS history, doctrine and scripture.

Regards,

Pahoran

There's a name for that: pooled ignorance.

[evangelist]

No. And Mormon congregations were never segregated as were many Protestant congregations, right up until the latter part of the 20th Century. By your logic how could said Protestant churches be Christian and countenance segregation?

Who started the segregations?

one love

[evangelist]

Only among those who know nothing at all about LDS history, doctrine and scripture.

Regards,

Pahoran

DidN#t know you guys has a history which can be found or proven!

[ElfLord]

Who started the segregations?

one love

Southern Slave holders.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who started the segregations?

one love

"Christians" who put expressions like "one love" in their signatures, perhaps.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

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.

Thank you for this clarification because it allows for the appropriate interpretation of D&C 1:38 and Deuteronomy 18:18-22 citations. It is good to know that even in General Conference the prophets are subjected to their very real humanity and limited understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (not that I'm any better, of course). Sometimes it seems as though personal agenda, lobbying for tradition, and trivial opinion plague the spirit of a possibly good message. I have sometimes heard the arrogant claim that when the prophets speak in GC...it is scripture. This is a claim hardly worth a second thought. Revelation comes through discernment, prayerful study of a proposed/supposed revelation, and its necessity or relevance to today.

[Damien the Leper]

No. And Mormon congregations were never segregated as were many Protestant congregations, right up until the latter part of the 20th Century. By your logic how could said Protestant churches be Christian and countenance segregation?

Exactly! Just one sec though...there may not have been segregation but racism was still a plague. Declaration II (Official Non-Revelation) was to give blacks males the priesthood. This was absolutely unneeded considering that blacks were ordained to the priesthood when JS was president of the church. The consolidation of priesthood during BY time was a racist move with no revelatory experience. I talked to a bishop who said that JS had been 'reprimanded' for the ordinations. What a joke! God never told the church to stop the ordinations. Such a claim is laughable worthy of harsh criticism. Harsh criticism for any rationalization for the priesthood suspension/withholdings of/from blacks is necessary. Wasn't it Bruce McConkie who stated that blacks will never hold the priesthood? What was the forum in which such an audacious claim was made?

This is a pretentious argument full of non-sensical rationalizations in defense of the LDS church and racism.

BTW, the Book of Mormon is a religious allegory and not meant for literal interpretation. Perhaps it is a cousin to the book of Job?

[Pahoran]

Wasn't it Bruce McConkie who stated that blacks will never hold the priesthood? What was the forum in which such an audacious claim was made?

Not that I'm aware of.

This is a pretentious argument full of non-sensical rationalizations in defense of the LDS church and racism.

BTW, the Book of Mormon is a religious allegory and not meant for literal interpretation. Perhaps it is a cousin to the book of Job?

You're entitled to your opinion. Since it is, at best, a fringe opinion, it might be appropriate for you to qualify it as such.

Particularly given the "harsh criticism" you have been willing to level at others for not so qualifying theirs.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

I second that!

I still didn't get an answer about how a so called christian church or church that follow Christ could invent such a thing.

I am glad at least God has no respect of person!

Was the mormon at one point a supporter of slavery??

one love

Your knowledge of the Book of Mormon is inadequate to support such a declaration.

Bernard