Races

[ERayR]

I'd much rather be able to find my copy.

It was taken from you because of your unbelief.

[Cobalt-70]

Because they dressed skimpier.

Yes, but they didn't have sunscreen, so their faces, at least, would be tanner than the Lamanites.

[Cobalt-70]

What theory? I stated facts. Joseph Smith is responsible for the "white" to "pure" change there. (See page 115 of the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, corrected by Joseph Smith from the original manuscript). Obviously, Joseph Smith did not consider that passage to refer to skin color.

You are not explicitly stating your point, so I have to infer it, which I understand to be that in "reformed Egyptian," the Book of Mormon does not contain the racial language that appeared in 1829, and that in 1840, Smith was merely fixing his translation to conform to the golden plates.

There are two possibilities open to a Book of Mormon historicist who is not open to racist interpretations: (1) the golden plates did not contain the "seemingly" racial language, and such language was introduced (innocently, perhaps) by Joseph Smith in 1829, but in 1840 he either changed his mind or realized that the language could mistakenly be read as racist. This theory is undermined by the fact that 2 Ne. 5:21 refers unambiguously to a "skin of blackness," and Joseph Smith never tried to change that in 1840. The second possibility is that (2) the golden plates contained the racial language, but Nephi was dead wrong, and in 1840, Joseph Smith tried to soften Nephi's racism.

Neither theory is very satisfying or coherent. A better theory is that in 1829, Joseph Smith believed that the Native Americans were cursed with dark skins, and that if they would only become righteous, they would become Caucasian. Then, in 1840, he changed his mind, and came to believe that although the Native Americans were cursed with dark skin, their conversion would not actually result in a change of racial characteristics. Therefore, he changed 2 Nephi 30:6 to reflect his changed belief.

[Pahoran]

My goodness. A issue of common knowledge needs a CFR? I wager you hardly need a CFR. Perhaps some new to the Gospel and new to attempting to defending the Church, but hardly a matter that needs substantiation to a season member and published defender.

You're mostly right; I only need one reference. I know for a fact that both Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball explicitly denied that blacks were "fence-sitters" in the pre-existence; so that only leaves McConkie. I asked for the reference because I don't believe the claim, and I'm pretty certain Walden was simply hoping to sneak this notorious canard under the radar.

And yes, the fact that this is a canard is an "issue of common knowledge." Did you not know that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

You're mostly right; I only need one reference. I know for a fact that both Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball explicitly denied that blacks were "fence-sitters" in the pre-existence; so that only leaves McConkie. I asked for the reference because I don't believe the claim, and I'm pretty certain Walden was simply hoping to sneak this notorious canard under the radar.

And yes, the fact that this is a canard is an "issue of common knowledge." Did you not know that?

Regards,

Pahoran

Then perhaps you go back and re-read the statement that has you disgruntled, the poster did not state that young and kimball used fence sitters, the poster gave listed several "reasons" concerning Blacks without making a claim as to what person promoted which reason. But as I asked does a published "defender" need such common knowledge referenced?

Edited September 26, 2012 by DavidB

[MormonMason]

MM I don't have you on ignore. I'm a middlewayer. I love my Mormon heritage and can't let go. I'd like our church to get back to the basics. Become more reliant on the Lord. The laws in the church make it less Grace oriented. We should not work for it. Note in James 2:10. If you break even one law it's a done deal. That's why Grace is everything, no matter what we do. That's where faith comes in and turning our lives over to Him. The 3rd article of faith is "We believe mankind will saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel". Where is Grace mentioned?

Note also James 2:24-26, and note what he says in the Greek text. Faith and works synergize to produce justification. A synergy is one thing working together with another thing to bring an end result. It is not a passive thing that follows an active thing or vice versa. Both deeds and faith work together as partners to produce the end result, which is justification.

Where is the grace mentioned, you ask? It is in the words you left out of your quote. You omitted "that through the atonement of Christ" from your quote. The Bible nowhere says that it is by grace alone that we are saved. That is a false Evangelical notion foisted upon the text, a notion that isn't there. But, it is because of grace that any can be saved at all. That is why there is no room for boasting. Each and every single one of us has need of the grace via the atonement of Christ or none of us could be saved no matter what we did or how well.

That is what the Bible teaches. What is more, the Bible teaches us that we are not just to settle for being saved but that we are to make our calling and election sure by doing certain things. All of these take work and action. Those who don't make that effort are described as having forgotten that they were saved. (See 2 Peter 1:4-11). Many won't be strong enough to enter in through the narrow door because the struggle will be too hard. Jesus was asked the question as to whether only a few would be saved. Jesus replied concerning the struggle for salvation which entrails putting into it all the effort we can muster as though we were in the Roman games fighting for our lives. The term Jesus used in the Greek text means essentially, "Work hard to enter in at the narrow gate." That is the teaching of Christ in the Bible that Evangelicals overlook or don't want to see but Christ taught it nonetheless. (See Luke 13:23-24).

The LDS Church is doing exactly as it should be if it is to be true to all the teachings of Christ that we have.

[MormonMason]

You are not explicitly stating your point, so I have to infer it, which I understand to be that in "reformed Egyptian," the Book of Mormon does not contain the racial language that appeared in 1829, and that in 1840, Smith was merely fixing his translation to conform to the golden plates.

There are two possibilities open to a Book of Mormon historicist who is not open to racist interpretations: (1) the golden plates did not contain the "seemingly" racial language, and such language was introduced (innocently, perhaps) by Joseph Smith in 1829, but in 1840 he either changed his mind or realized that the language could mistakenly be read as racist. This theory is undermined by the fact that 2 Ne. 5:21 refers unambiguously to a "skin of blackness," and Joseph Smith never tried to change that in 1840. The second possibility is that (2) the golden plates contained the racial language, but Nephi was dead wrong, and in 1840, Joseph Smith tried to soften Nephi's racism.

Neither theory is very satisfying or coherent. A better theory is that in 1829, Joseph Smith believed that the Native Americans were cursed with dark skins, and that if they would only become righteous, they would become Caucasian. Then, in 1840, he changed his mind, and came to believe that although the Native Americans were cursed with dark skin, their conversion would not actually result in a change of racial characteristics. Therefore, he changed 2 Nephi 30:6 to reflect his changed belief.

None of these work in light of the text. In fact, all of these explanations you tried to provide proverbially could suck a golf ball through a garden hose. If Joseph Smith changed his mind why did he not adjust all the passages? Why just this one? Fact is, Joseph Smith only altered this one passage. Fact: In either Egyptian of Hebrew "purity and the color "white" are expressed by the very same word. The Book of Mormon was written in Egyptian with the learning of the Jews. I think it would be better to see this as Joseph Smith learning Hebrew in 1835-1836 and realizing as he came across this passage that the context of the passage better fit the English word "pure" rather than "white" which would have been the literal meaning on the plates. Again, see Daniel 11:35 and 12:10 in the KJV and compare that to modern translations.

It is also possible that the original manuscript once read "pure." Joseph Smith was correcting his copy of the Book of Mormon using the Original Manuscript because Oliver Cowdery took the Printer's Manuscript with him out of the Church. Yes, I am aware Skousen thinks otherwise. But, if I recall correctly, this section of the manuscript no longer is extant so it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Either way, the same underlying word could be translated either white or pure and still be correct without being a change geared toward softening so-called racist overtones. Given the fact that Joseph Smith left the other passages unchanged, including those that directly mention skin color, does not bode well for any theory or hypothesis that he later changed his mind on this issue. If he did, or he wanted to soften the blow of Nephi's alleged racism, he more likely would have changed all the passages accordingly.

It is also a fact that in the ancient languages both white and pure are represented by the same words. Don't believe it? Check the lexicons.

[Pahoran]

Then perhaps you go back and re-read the statement that has you disgruntled, the poster did not state that young and kimball used fence sitters, the poster gave listed several "reasons" concerning Blacks without making a claim as to what person promoted which reason.

Really?

Here is what he said. I have re-read it; I invite you to do the same.

In the past, church leaders (Young, McConkie, Kimball, etc.) have linked race to righteousness, teaching that those who are black are descended from people who were either smitten by god with a dark mark upon their skin for their unrighteousness, were fence sitters in the pre-existence, etc.

Feel free to explain that away.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

Really?

Here is what he said. I have re-read it; I invite you to do the same.

Feel free to explain that away.

Regards,

Pahoran

I already explained it away, the poster did not directly state each of those persons taught each of the reasons the poster listed.

[Pahoran]

I already explained it away, the poster did not directly state each of those persons taught each of the reasons the poster listed.

And given that none of them actually taught one of the reasons he attributed to them -- and at least two of them explicitly taught against it -- that makes it hunky-dory, does it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

And given that none of them actually taught one of the reasons he attributed to them -- and at least two of them explicitly taught against it -- that makes it hunky-dory, does it?

Regards,

Pahoran

(Young, McConkie, Kimball, etc.)

Edited September 27, 2012 by DavidB

[Pahoran]

(Young, McConkie, Kimball, etc.)

So he cites a teaching, attributes it to "Young, McConkie, Kimball, etc," and since Young, McConkie and Kimball didn't teach it, it must have been taught by Elder Et Cetera?

Is that it, is it?

It's fascinating to watch your simultaneous performance on two threads. On this one, you'll go to any lengths to excuse a blatant falsehood by a critic; on the other, you'll go to any lengths to accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of "hiding" something during a period when it was continuously publishing it.

Haaamazing.

Just so you know, "Etc" means "and so forth," i.e. "and like others." Walden unequivocally insisted that the "fence-sitters" canard was taught by President Young, President Kimball, Elder McConkie etc, i.e. and others just like them.

That's and, not or.

His problem is that not one of the three named ever taught that false doctrine. He has failed to produce a single Church leader who taught it.

Can you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

paharon is you need to win just go ahead and claim your false victory.....you are very tiresome. have fun.

[Pahoran]

paharon is you need to win just go ahead and claim your false victory.....you are very tiresome. have fun.

Thank you for admitting that you can't produce even one Church leader who taught the false "fence-sitter" doctrine.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well Pahoran you did win. Why David chooses to defend the indefensible is beyond me.

[DavidB]

Thank you for admitting that you can't produce even one Church leader who taught the false "fence-sitter" doctrine.

Regards,

Pahoran

And thank you.

Edited September 27, 2012 by DavidB

[volgadon]

The laws in the church make it less Grace oriented.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Those who would make such a claim understand neither grace nor the role of laws.

[Tacenda]

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Those who would make such a claim understand neither grace nor the role of laws.

I've been a member long enough to know that Grace is downplayed in the church. When is the last time you've heard "Amazing Grace" sung at church? Also, the word Grace has been taken out of church hymns from what I've learned. Why might that be?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Erm, we sang Amazing Grace at my baptism ...

[Tacenda]

Erm, we sang Amazing Grace at my baptism ...

I guess you didn't use the hymn book then. I love this song. I remember visiting my mom at an assisted care center and this wonderful elderly woman suffered from, I believe, Picks disease, never spoke but would greet you with a beautiful rendition of "Amazing Grace".

[volgadon]

I've been a member long enough to know that Grace is downplayed in the church.

Many members might downplay the word grace rather than the concept because so very often the concept is 1) associated with hollow, public displays of "cheap grace," and 2) been used so often by evangelicals to beat us over the head that we tend to get defensive over it.

When is the last time you've heard "Amazing Grace" sung at church?

Honestly? I've grown tired of the melody, so not hearing it everywhere is kind of nice. I'd much rather we sang "What Wondrous Love."

Anyway: http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/products/product?product_id=645 http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/products/product?product_id=666 http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/products/product?product_id=131

Also, the word Grace has been taken out of church hymns from what I've learned.

Which ones, and how many. Come on, let's not be vague about it.

Why might that be?

Obviously because we are Supercalifragilegalists.

[Tacenda]

Many members might downplay the word grace rather than the concept because so very often the concept is 1) associated with hollow, public displays of "cheap grace," and 2) been used so often by evangelicals to beat us over the head that we tend to get defensive over it.

Honestly? I've grown tired of the melody, so not hearing it everywhere is kind of nice. I'd much rather we sang "What Wondrous Love."

Anyway: http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/products/product?product_id=645 http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/products/product?product_id=666 http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/products/product?product_id=131

Which ones, and how many. Come on, let's not be vague about it.

Obviously because we are Supercalifragilegalists.

I honestly think that was so creative, the last word and you snuck in legalists! I'll get back to you on the hymns since I read about it in a mormon blog awhile ago.

[volgadon]

I honestly think that was so creative, the last word and you snuck in legalists! I'll get back to you on the hymns since I read about it in a mormon blog awhile ago.

One has to have fun.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

In the interest of spending our time on what is virtuous, lovely, and of good report, I vote that we derail the original topic of this thread into an exhibit of our favorite hymns!

For instance, another song we did at my baptism was Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee:

[media=]

Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy. (That's 'men' in the inclusive sense, ie, 'mankind', including women, and utterly disregarding 'race'!)

C'mon, do lyrics get any better than this? I dare anyone not to weep.

Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee,

God of glory, Lord of love;

Hearts unfold like flow’rs before Thee,

Op’ning to the sun above.

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness;

Drive the dark of doubt away;

Giver of immortal gladness,

Fill us with the light of day!

All Thy works with joy surround Thee,

Earth and heav’n reflect Thy rays,

Stars and angels sing around Thee,

Center of unbroken praise.

Field and forest, vale and mountain,

Flow’ry meadow, flashing sea,

Singing bird and flowing fountain

Call us to rejoice in Thee.

Thou art giving and forgiving,

Ever blessing, ever blest,

Wellspring of the joy of living,

Ocean depth of happy rest!

Thou our Father, Christ our Brother,

All who live in love are Thine;

Teach us how to love each other,

Lift us to the joy divine.

Mortals, join the happy chorus,

Which the morning stars began;

Father love is reigning o’er us,

Brother love binds man to man.

Ever singing, march we onward,

Victors in the midst of strife,

Joyful music leads us Sunward

In the triumph song of life.

Edited September 27, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Tacenda]

In the interest of spending our time on what is virtuous, lovely, and of good report, I vote that we derail the original topic of this thread into an exhibit of our favorite hymns!

For instance, another song we did at my baptism was Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee:

[media=]

Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy. (That's 'men' in the inclusive sense, ie, 'mankind', including women, and utterly disregarding 'race'!)

C'mon, do lyrics get any better than this? I dare anyone not to weep.

Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee,

God of glory, Lord of love;

Hearts unfold like flow’rs before Thee,

Op’ning to the sun above.

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness;

Drive the dark of doubt away;

Giver of immortal gladness,

Fill us with the light of day!

All Thy works with joy surround Thee,

Earth and heav’n reflect Thy rays,

Stars and angels sing around Thee,

Center of unbroken praise.

Field and forest, vale and mountain,

Flow’ry meadow, flashing sea,

Singing bird and flowing fountain

Call us to rejoice in Thee.

Thou art giving and forgiving,

Ever blessing, ever blest,

Wellspring of the joy of living,

Ocean depth of happy rest!

Thou our Father, Christ our Brother,

All who live in love are Thine;

Teach us how to love each other,

Lift us to the joy divine.

Mortals, join the happy chorus,

Which the morning stars began;

Father love is reigning o’er us,

Brother love binds man to man.

Ever singing, march we onward,

Victors in the midst of strife,

Joyful music leads us Sunward

In the triumph song of life.

Oh good, I can't wait for my new computer so I can post some!