Lamanite Identities

[canard78]

Uurgh. I'd looked forward to some further exploration of the Lamanite issue but I see it's just three more pages of bickering.

Oh well... If you can't beat 'em join 'em

FWIW, those saying they have "never been told to only read church material" have either never served missions (which is possible) or have forgotten.

The white handbook of instruction says only church approved materials can be read. This however only applies to full-time missionaries.

It can, however, for some people lead to a misunderstanding that non-church material is innapropriate. This is an incorrect assumption, but one I have felt in the past and have discussed with people who have had similar concerns (I have no reference so I appreciate this may get called up).

So... Lamanites anyone? I had put quite a long post on DNA, symbolism and ancestry in the middle of the CFR debate and was interested on feedback. But maybe the moment has passed.

[Kemara]

Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given.

Well, you said it.

No, I mean, you said it

I have an excellent recipe for rabbit stew, mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm it is yummy.

[Tacenda]

Uurgh. I'd looked forward to some further exploration of the Lamanite issue but I see it's just three more pages of bickering.

Oh well... If you can't beat 'em join 'em

FWIW, those saying they have "never been told to only read church material" have either never served missions (which is possible) or have forgotten.

The white handbook of instruction says only church approved materials can be read. This however only applies to full-time missionaries.

It can, however, for some people lead to a misunderstanding that non-church material is innapropriate. This is an incorrect assumption, but one I have felt in the past and have discussed with people who have had similar concerns (I have no reference so I appreciate this may get called up).

So... Lamanites anyone? I had put quite a long post on DNA, symbolism and ancestry in the middle of the CFR debate and was interested on feedback. But maybe the moment has passed.

Sorry that happened. I'm retracting my statements that were CFR'd so that the thread may move forward to discussing the original topic.

[Kemara]

I'm retracting my statements that were CFR'd so that the thread may move forward to discussing the original topic.

Really? Are you sure its not because no such references exist?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Kemara

[canard78]

Really? Are you sure its not because not such references exist?

Kemara, I find your tone quite unpleasant. (Comment deleted)

Tacenda, no apology needed. My post was more directed at the massive over-reaction to you sharing your experience. Any of them who are RMs are also incorrect when they say they have "never been told to only read church approved material" and could also be called on to retract their statement.

I work in the advertising research industry. Sometimes clients are outraged when we tell them that consumers have taken out a different message to the one intended in an ad. If it was said in a way that gave the recipient the wrong impression, that's a reality.

Impression (despite what's said) is what's communicated to the individual. There's sometimes a gap between the two.

E.g.:

- Some married mormon women still feel guilty and dirty about sex because they got the impression as teens it was a filthy, evil sin.

- Some members consider coke to be against the word of wisdom because a prophet asked them "as a personal favour" to not drink it.

- Some polynesian members believe they are literal descendants of Lehi because of a non-canonized talk from a GA

(I know wikipedia 'bans' the word 'some' - apologies if the same rule exists here.)

Edited November 15, 2012 by canard78

[Scott Lloyd]

Any of them who are RMs are also incorrect when they say they have "never been told to only read church approved material" and could also be called on to retract their statement.

I served a mission in the era of the white handbook. Though the list of books we were allowed to carry with us was limited, I don't remember any specific prohibition against looking at non-approved literature. I can even recall perusing Swedish newspapers on occasion, even going to the public library once in a while, and not having any understanding or notion that I was being particularly disobedient.

As it happens, I found a website where somebody has scanned in the old white handbook page by page. I looked through it. Beyond a general admonition to lose oneself in service to the Lord, which one might expect to be part and parcel of missionary service, I see no specific prohibition against reading or looking at non-Church literature.

So, I invite you to look through the pages of the handbook and cite a specific passage mandating that the missionaries "only read church approved material." Perhaps it's in there and I missed it, though I doubt it, because I looked through it rather carefully.

I await your report.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Kemara, I find your tone quite unpleasant. I thought this was supposed to be a board for Mormon (maybe even christian) dialogue.

Kemara is an effective and skillful debater and tends not to let his opponents off easily. But to say he has behaved here in a manner unbecoming a Latter-day Saint or a Christian amounts to unrighteous judgment.

You gave your opinion; now you've heard mine.

[Tacenda]

I served a mission in the era of the white handbook. Though the list of books we were allowed to carry with us was limited, I don't remember any specific prohibition against looking at non-approved literature. I can even recall perusing Swedish newspapers on occasion, even going to the public library once in a while, and not having any understanding or notion that I was being particularly disobedient.

As it happens, I found a website where somebody has scanned in the old white handbook page by page. I looked through it. Beyond a general admonition to lose oneself in service to the Lord, which one might expect to be part and parcel of missionary service, I see no specific prohibition against reading or looking at non-Church literature.

So, I invite you to look through the pages of the handbook and cite a specific passage mandating that the missionaries "only read church approved material." Perhaps it's in there and I missed it, though I doubt it, because I looked through it rather carefully.

I await your report.

Can insinuating reading certain materials be possible in this debate?

[Kemara]

Kemara, I find your tone quite unpleasant.

I support your right to hold and express your opinion of me. I support my right to hold and express my opinions. I believe that I express those opinions in a way that conforms to the board guidelines. You are free to disagree.

I thought this was supposed to be a board for Mormon (maybe even christian) dialogue.

This is a board for Mormon dialogue and I believe I dialogue in a way that conforms with the tenants of Mormonism. You are free to disagree.

Finally......maybe even christian? That's a bit bizzare. Please elaborate.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Kemara

[mfbukowski]

Kemara is an effective and skillful debater and tends not to let his opponents off easily. But to say he has behaved here in a manner unbecoming a Latter-day Saint or a Christian amounts to unrighteous judgment.

You gave your opinion; now you've heard mine.

For the record, agreed!

[Robert F. Smith]

Others may have already commented on this as I am still reading the first page of comments but the problem here is that we have prophets who have stated unequivically that the flood was literal and covered the entire earth. The Book of Mormon with the story of the Jaredites is quite clear that the tower of Babel was a real event and at that time the languages of the earth were changed. If these things are not true then these books that are supposed to be true have included in them things that are not true. How then do we differentiate on which parts are true and which parts are myths. It also means that we can't count on the things the modern day prophets teach us because they have been shown to teach things that aren't true. We also can't count on personal revelation because the personal revelation to some people is that certain things are true and to others the personal revelation is the opposite. Truth is not subjective.

"How then do we differentiate on which parts are true and which parts are myths?"

Well, we might start by reading the text more carefully, and not assume that one particular interpretation is objectively true.

For example, the Book of Mormon does not speak of the "tower of Babel," but rather of a "great tower." By reading "Babel" into the Book of Mormon you are reading subjectively and erroneously. Babel is a late glosse on the biblical text. The Book of Mormon contains a much earlier Jaredite tradition, and correctly leaves out Babel.

The same is true of belief that the Great Deluge was planetary rather than regional or local.

[Robert F. Smith]

Given that the Bible and Book of Mormon were written within (the following is deliberate hyperbole) ethnocentric/xenophobic (perhaps even overtly racist) societies, and the prophets creating these texts were members of those societies, it should not be a surprise to us to find large portions of the text devoted to their tradition/lineage. The whole texts are lineage specific.

The real question is whether or not we need to proscribe a religious imperative to xenophobic traditions embodied within these texts, or whether it would be better to simply understand them as part of the time frame and societal learning that was prevalent and appearing in the text as an off-shoot of culture, not because God actually is more concerned with one lineage or line over another.

* * * *

An interesting example of the irrelevancy of the Abrahamic Covenant (and thereby Israelite Ancestral lineage in general) is actually the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is the power of god, the authority by which we claim the restoration of the gospel. It is also named after Melchizedek, who was the king Abraham paid tithing to. I assume that Melchizedek had this priesthood (one of the reasons it was named after him). He was also not part of the Abrahamic Covenant (he was not a descendant of Abraham). The primary power of our Church predates the Abrahamic Covenant, is not named from within the Abrahamic tradition itself, people were able to be saved through the atonement pre-dating the abrahamic covenant so there is nothing essential about this covenant for those outside the lineage that would make adoption into the covenant necessary for salvation (except that the religious texts written from with in the tradition really want it to be that way).

* * * *

Surely we can explore the idea that our religious obsession with the descendants of Abraham is more about the lineage of Christ and the fallacy of the observed (our religious texts are almost all from within one cultural tradition) rather than any real religious necessity about obsessing about the tribes of israel?

I hope one day we are able to find a the lost prophetic writings of Melchizedek, or other prophets from outside the Jewish tradition. I appreciate the culture of the Israelites, I appreciate the Old Testament and the New Testament and the way in which the Jewish tradition made both these books possible. However, we should not be surprised that religious scriptures from within a (fairly) closed cultural tradition talk about the salvation of that tradition and proposes a restorative self/other world dichotomy. This is normal and not unique. It is in the ancient Indian texts, it is also present in the Koran. It shows that prophets were also human and had a cultural commitment in addition to there religious one.

We gain nothing by linking people back to a certain BOM ancestral heritage. We are saved through Christ, not DNA.

I suppose that if we ignore the very words of Christ, that all might be true, but in so saying you have ignored the explicit words of Jesus Christ himself and of the Bible. A surface reading of Scripture has allowed you to miss the point:

Churches are evanescent, not permanent. The priesthood is indeed prior and the various churches or congregations it designs and uses are created and structured to serve its eternal purposes. Only the priesthood is eternal.

Melchizedek is not a name, it is a title.

Jesus was a Jew of the Davidic Dynasty and heir of that promise, as well as being the very Lamb of God offered at Passover as the final atonement for sin -- the point toward which Mosaic temple sacrifice had brought Israel.

Not only was the Abrahamic Covenant an unconditional covenant, but it featured the special blessing for us all that all the nations of the Earth would be blessed by his numerous seed. Even today, we can see that the Jews make very advanced contributions to international society which are fulfilling that promise, from their high moral teachings to the most complex medical and other scientific advances, the like of which we get from no other ethnic group. Toynbee found that his historical theories could not account for the Jews, and Lawrence of Arabia could only speak in wonder at "the eternal miracle of the Jews" (Seven Pillars of Wisdom).

How is it possible that the Jewish State of Israel even exists, much less continues the gathering of its people from places like Russia? You need to rethink your cynical diatribe, and think for a moment about a people which was commanded by God to include the stranger in their midst, treat him with justice, and to include him in the sacred Passover meal. No other people writes a lineage history with prophetic self-condemnation on every other page. Only the Israelites.

[Robert F. Smith]

Sure she could be a Lehite--if the Book of Mormon were written that way. But the Book of Mormon's references to Shakespeare were a little bit more subtle than that.

We're not talking about who could, in some hypothetical Book of Mormon, be considered metaphorical Lehites. We are constrained by the Book of Mormon we actually have, which says that the gentiles will be numbered among the Lehites (Lamanites, actually) as a blessed American people, not that they will become metaphorical or literal Lehites.

The Book of Mormon makes no reference to Shakespeare. http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/55708000-Death-in-Shakespeare-and-in-the-Book-of-Mormon .

And, as usual, you use metaphor only when it seems to serve your purpose, but not when it concerns skin pigmentation.

[Robert F. Smith]

None of this has anything to do with Lehi, however, except that Lehi was described as a literal descendant of Joseph. If we want to say that Native Americans (genetically Asian) are adopted into the metaphorical posterity of the fictional man Lehi, we could say that, too. But the passage in question does not say that the righteous gentiles are so adopted. The gentiles are only metaphorically adopted into the broader house of Israel and its twelve tribes.

You might want to think in terms of Paul in Romans 11:16-28 regarding the election of the natural branches (Israel) and the grafting in of the Gentiles for a time (I'd mention Jacob 5 also, but you'd probably dispose of it as "fictional," even though you have no evidence upon which to base such a claim). For the first shall be the last, and the last shall be the first.

[canard78]

I served a mission in the era of the white handbook. Though the list of books we were allowed to carry with us was limited, I don't remember any specific prohibition against looking at non-approved literature. I can even recall perusing Swedish newspapers on occasion, even going to the public library once in a while, and not having any understanding or notion that I was being particularly disobedient.

As it happens, I found a website where somebody has scanned in the old white handbook page by page. I looked through it. Beyond a general admonition to lose oneself in service to the Lord, which one might expect to be part and parcel of missionary service, I see no specific prohibition against reading or looking at non-Church literature.

So, I invite you to look through the pages of the handbook and cite a specific passage mandating that the missionaries "only read church approved material." Perhaps it's in there and I missed it, though I doubt it, because I looked through it rather carefully.

I await your report.

That's a very old edition of the handbook (1970s).

2006 version says missionaries "are only permitted to read books, magazines, or other materials authorized by the church." Missionary Handbook 2006 Edition, page 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_(LDS_Church)#Media_rules)

From memory I'm fairly sure this was also in place in the 1990s when I served. I'll try to find a copy online somewhere.

(Edit: I can't seem to edit the posts that said 'any RM' - so yes, it's fair to say you weren't told this, but the link shows some have 'ever' been told this in the church, and also helps to understand why some people take a dim-view of non-authorised material for gospel study. FWIW, I don't agree with that view. I love additional sources for gospel study, but I also enjoy the study of where mistaken impressions come from in the church. Lamanite origins is another that fascinates me, hence why I'm following this thread).

Edited November 16, 2012 by canard78

[canard78]

I support your right to hold and express your opinion of me. I support my right to hold and express my opinions. I believe that I express those opinions in a way that conforms to the board guidelines. You are free to disagree.

This is a board for Mormon dialogue and I believe I dialogue in a way that conforms with the tenants of Mormonism. You are free to disagree.

Finally......maybe even christian? That's a bit bizzare. Please elaborate.

I've deleted the comment as it was made with nonconstructive language for which I apologize and retract it. I appreciate a space to have a good debate about mormonism online. I enjoy Sunday School, Priesthood too - and recognise this is a better outlet for more intellectual debate, so am not trying to call a stop to that.

But... I think people also need to appreciate that some people come to this board with the emotional and spiritual anxiety of faith crises, looking for answers to genuine questions. Sometimes the tone may conform with board rules - but they could still be taken as quite non-conciliatory and sometimes aggressive. I appreciate that the written word has no tone or body language, so perhaps I'm putting my own interpretation onto it.

[Kemara]

I've deleted the comment as it was made with nonconstructive language for which I apologize and retract it.

canard78, I took no offence at your comments, I am more than happy for you to call it as you see it so long as you stay within the board guidelines. While I disagree with your conclusion I saw nothing wrong with the language you used and do not object to people being direct.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Kemara

[volgadon]

I suppose that if we ignore the very words of Christ, that all might be true, but in so saying you have ignored the explicit words of Jesus Christ himself and of the Bible. A surface reading of Scripture has allowed you to miss the point:

Churches are evanescent, not permanent. The priesthood is indeed prior and the various churches or congregations it designs and uses are created and structured to serve its eternal purposes. Only the priesthood is eternal.

Melchizedek is not a name, it is a title.

Jesus was a Jew of the Davidic Dynasty and heir of that promise, as well as being the very Lamb of God offered at Passover as the final atonement for sin -- the point toward which Mosaic temple sacrifice had brought Israel.

Not only was the Abrahamic Covenant an unconditional covenant, but it featured the special blessing for us all that all the nations of the Earth would be blessed by his numerous seed. Even today, we can see that the Jews make very advanced contributions to international society which are fulfilling that promise, from their high moral teachings to the most complex medical and other scientific advances, the like of which we get from no other ethnic group. Toynbee found that his historical theories could not account for the Jews, and Lawrence of Arabia could only speak in wonder at "the eternal miracle of the Jews" (Seven Pillars of Wisdom).

How is it possible that the Jewish State of Israel even exists, much less continues the gathering of its people from places like Russia? You need to rethink your cynical diatribe, and think for a moment about a people which was commanded by God to include the stranger in their midst, treat him with justice, and to include him in the sacred Passover meal. No other people writes a lineage history with prophetic self-condemnation on every other page. Only the Israelites.

I missed that post you are quoting. Thank you for your response.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's a very old edition of the handbook (1970s).

2006 version says missionaries "are only permitted to read books, magazines, or other materials authorized by the church." Missionary Handbook 2006 Edition, page 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_(LDS_Church)#Media_rules)

From memory I'm fairly sure this was also in place in the 1990s when I served. I'll try to find a copy online somewhere.

Even if what you say is true, I showed you the handbook that was in place when I served my mission, so your remark, "Any of them who are RMs are also incorrect when they say they have 'never been told to only read church approved material' and could also be called on to retract their statement" cannot apply to me, not does it necessarily apply to "any of them who are RMs".

Moreover, you must have had me in mind when you made this remark, as it seems to apply directly to a post that I alone made on this thread.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I've deleted the comment as it was made with nonconstructive language for which I apologize and retract it. I appreciate a space to have a good debate about mormonism online. I enjoy Sunday School, Priesthood too - and recognise this is a better outlet for more intellectual debate, so am not trying to call a stop to that.

But... I think people also need to appreciate that some people come to this board with the emotional and spiritual anxiety of faith crises, looking for answers to genuine questions.

Be that as it may, I don't believe any good purpose is served by being careless with facts. Those who undertake to criticize ought to be held accountable for accuracy. Everyone should, for that matter. That is why I support the board rule that references be provided when they are called for.

[bcuzbcuz]

I served a mission in the era of the white handbook. Though the list of books we were allowed to carry with us was limited, I don't remember any specific prohibition against looking at non-approved literature. I can even recall perusing Swedish newspapers on occasion, even going to the public library once in a while, and not having any understanding or notion that I was being particularly disobedient.

As it happens, I found a website where somebody has scanned in the old white handbook page by page. I looked through it. Beyond a general admonition to lose oneself in service to the Lord, which one might expect to be part and parcel of missionary service, I see no specific prohibition against reading or looking at non-Church literature.

So, I invite you to look through the pages of the handbook and cite a specific passage mandating that the missionaries "only read church approved material." Perhaps it's in there and I missed it, though I doubt it, because I looked through it rather carefully.

I await your report.

You served in Sweden? What years and under which presidents? During 64-67 we were not given any time that would permit a library visit. Libraries were not specifically forbidden but unless you wrote it up as contact time, there was no time. And of course conversations are not permitted in libraries, therefore the loop closes. We were not even given laundry time unless we wrote it up as contact time, and if you remember the Swedish tvättstugor, Swedes do not look kindly on someone else in the tvättstuga at the same time. We spent our late evenings washing shirts and garments in the bathroom sink, sometimes without warm water. Mission rules were: Anything not specifically permitted, was forbidden.

[bcuzbcuz]

As it happens, I found a website where somebody has scanned in the old white handbook page by page. I looked through it. Beyond a general admonition to lose oneself in service to the Lord, which one might expect to be part and parcel of missionary service, I see no specific prohibition against reading or looking at non-Church literature.

So, I invite you to look through the pages of the handbook and cite a specific passage mandating that the missionaries "only read church approved material." Perhaps it's in there and I missed it, though I doubt it, because I looked through it rather carefully.

I await your report.

Check out the White Handbook, Special Mission Rules, specifically rule #14 on page 14. It state: Read only Church published books and magazines unless directed otherwise by your mission president.

[Kemara]

We spent our late evenings washing shirts and garments in the bathroom sink, sometimes without warm water.

You had a bathroom sink, and therefore probably a bathroom, you had running water which was sometimes warm and you had at least three shirts and three pairs of garments (I say three pairs because I am assuming you didnt wash your clothes while naked). Considering the suffering that existed throughout the world at the time you lived in luxury, I hope you were grateful for it. I bet that most of the time you even ate food once per day, perhaps more. Millions of people would have been envious of your life.

[bcuzbcuz]

I suppose that if we ignore the very words of Christ, that all might be true, but in so saying you have ignored the explicit words of Jesus Christ himself and of the Bible. A surface reading of Scripture has allowed you to miss the point:

Churches are evanescent, not permanent. The priesthood is indeed prior and the various churches or congregations it designs and uses are created and structured to serve its eternal purposes. Only the priesthood is eternal.

Melchizedek is not a name, it is a title.

Jesus was a Jew of the Davidic Dynasty and heir of that promise, as well as being the very Lamb of God offered at Passover as the final atonement for sin -- the point toward which Mosaic temple sacrifice had brought Israel.

Not only was the Abrahamic Covenant an unconditional covenant, but it featured the special blessing for us all that all the nations of the Earth would be blessed by his numerous seed. Even today, we can see that the Jews make very advanced contributions to international society which are fulfilling that promise, from their high moral teachings to the most complex medical and other scientific advances, the like of which we get from no other ethnic group. Toynbee found that his historical theories could not account for the Jews, and Lawrence of Arabia could only speak in wonder at "the eternal miracle of the Jews" (Seven Pillars of Wisdom).

How is it possible that the Jewish State of Israel even exists, much less continues the gathering of its people from places like Russia? You need to rethink your cynical diatribe, and think for a moment about a people which was commanded by God to include the stranger in their midst, treat him with justice, and to include him in the sacred Passover meal. No other people writes a lineage history with prophetic self-condemnation on every other page. Only the Israelites.

You open with the supposition: that if we ignore the very words of Christ. Which words would those be? We don't have any actual words of Christ in the Bible. The first written record was written around 30 to 40 years after Christ's death. The record wasn't written in Jesus' language, but in Greek, as far as we know....since none (0) of the original texts have survived. Absolutely none of the texts were written by Christ and the four gospels are all suspect of not being by the apostles. Paul never met Christ and a good number the texts in Paul's name were not written by Paul.

You say that Jesus was of the Davidic lineage. But that traces his lineage through Joseph, who wasn't his father.

[Scott Lloyd]

You served in Sweden? What years and under which presidents? During 64-67 we were not given any time that would permit a library visit. Libraries were not specifically forbidden but unless you wrote it up as contact time, there was no time. And of course conversations are not permitted in libraries, therefore the loop closes. We were not even given laundry time unless we wrote it up as contact time, and if you remember the Swedish tvättstugor, Swedes do not look kindly on someone else in the tvättstuga at the same time. We spent our late evenings washing shirts and garments in the bathroom sink, sometimes without warm water.

I served from 1974 to 1976.

I wasn't there in the mid-sixties, but Sweden today is not a Third World country, nor was it in the mid-1970s, when I was there. In each of the apartments where I lived and served, we had access to laundry facilities, and no one resented our using them. The other residents of the apartment buildings just weren't that hostile.

With the mission presidents I served under (Folkersen and the two Oscarson brothers), we were allowed to take one "culture evening" per month. In most of the smaller towns where we served, there wasn't much else to do on such occasions other than go to the library.

I didn't say I spent a lot of time reading non-Church literature. But there is a big difference between not having time to do something and being expressly forbidden to do it.

Mission rules were: Anything not specifically permitted, was forbidden.

This is a ridiculous concept. There is a whole universe of things that could not be included in a tiny handbook that were not forbidden. The handbook didn't say anything about going to the local Domus grocery store to buy our food, but it certainly wasn't forbidden.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd