Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[BCSpace]

In the new topical addition of Race and the Priesthood on lds.org....

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#8

 

....among other things it states:

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life;

 

The critical response in part has been to call the following Book of Mormon verses into question saying that the recent topical addition throws the BoM under the bus:

 

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
2 Nephi 5:21

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you;
Jacob 3:5

And 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.
Alma 3:6

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
3 Nephi 2:15

 

In the past some have promoted various theories.  One example is that 'black skin' or a 'skin of blackness' refers more to a spiritual condition that may be visible or otherwise discerned.  I'm not sure the Church has accepted this.  I have always differentiated between these BoM verses and the recent priesthood ban as separate though I have not developed a working explanation as to why I do.

 

In addition, I personally have always separated these verses out from the issue of the priesthood ban mainly because there is no evidence of Laminates not being allowed to receive the priesthood once they converted though in a primarily OT culture, that may or may not have been an issue.

 

I'm doing a little more research and revisiting of the subject but I'm curious to know how any of you would respond to the criticism that these BoM verses are wrong or racist or can no longer be considered scripture etc.  Or at least perhaps this may provoke a little more research of your own which is always a good thing imho.

 

The ultimate response I personally will adopt, whatever it happens to be will have to assume these verses aren't racist and that LDS doctrine isn't or hasn't been racist.  I understand some of you have a much different opinion on that, but I believe the more varied the pov of people working on a response the better mine will be.

 

And perhaps the Church has an explanation already in one of it's manuals...

 

 

Edit:  I know how to spell Priesthood, my fingers don't always comply.

Edited December 8, 2013 by BCSpace

[blooit]

To me, "skins" can refer to garments, which can become white through repentance. 

Edited December 7, 2013 by blooit

[canard78]

To me, "skins" can refer to garments, which can become white through repentance. 

 

Nice idea. But that's clearly not what the Lamanite "skins" were referring to.

[blooit]

Nice idea. But that's clearly not what the Lamanite "skins" were referring to.

 

Oh I don't know.  Mentioning the skins as a barrier to intermarriage suggests that, but I don't think the rest are that cut and dried.  That being said, doesn't concern me.  It could suggest that God can use skin as a mark or curse (much like my inability to grow hair ), or it could be that BOM author(s) viewed skin color that way.  Americans sure do get overhyped about skin color.  Kind of odd if you ask me.

[cinepro]

I think Brant was the first person I heard to explain these verses as unrighteous racism on the part of the original authors (apologies if this is not something Brant has ever put forth). 

 

I think that would be the best explanation for the Church to adopt.  Accept the "racist" dark-skin teachings as authentic but incorrect. 

 

In other words, in this case, we need to be "better" than our scriptures.

[Duncan]

I think Brant was the first person I heard to explain these verses as unrighteous racism on the part of the original authors (apologies if this is not something Brant has ever put forth). 

 

I think that would be the best explanation for the Church to adopt.  Accept the "racist" dark-skin teachings as authentic but incorrect. 

 

In other words, in this case, we need to be "better" than our scriptures.

 

 

its been awhile and correct me if I am wrong but didn't God originally put black skin on Cain and his seed to essentially hide them from Abel's possible vengeful seed? so it God was merciful to them to protect them, maybe that would work too?

[David T]

I think Brant was the first person I heard to explain these verses as unrighteous racism on the part of the original authors (apologies if this is not something Brant has ever put forth).

I think that would be the best explanation for the Church to adopt. Accept the "racist" dark-skin teachings as authentic but incorrect.

In other words, in this case, we need to be "better" than our scriptures.

I know I argued that position here -http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-2anephi-skin-blackness/

[sweetpotatoh]

It refers to culture.

[mfbukowski]

In the new topical addition of Race and the Priesthood on lds.org....

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#8

 

....among other things it states:

 

 

The critical response in part has been to call the following Book of Mormon verses into question saying that the recent topical addition throws the BoM under the bus:

 

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

2 Nephi 5:21

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you;

Jacob 3:5

And 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.

Alma 3:6

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

3 Nephi 2:15

 

In the past some have promoted various theories.  One example is that 'black skin' or a 'skin of blackness' refers more to a spiritual condition that may be visible or otherwise discerned.  I'm not sure the Church has accepted this.  I have always differentiated between these BoM verses and the recent priesthood ban as a separate though I have not developed a working explanation as to why I do.

 

In addition, I personally have always separated these verses out from the issue of the priesthood ban mainly because there is no evidence of Laminates not being allowed to receive the priesthood once they converted though in a primarily OT culture, that may or may not have been an issue.

 

I'm doing a little more research and revisiting of the subject but I'm curious to know how any of you would respond to the criticism that these BoM verses are wrong or racist or can no longer be considered scripture etc.  Or at least perhaps this may provoke a little more research of your own which is always a good thing imho.

 

The ultimate response I personally will adopt, whatever it happens to be will have to assume these verses aren't racist and that LDS doctrine isn't or hasn't been racist.  I understand some of you have a much different opinion on that, but I believe the more varied the pov of people working on a response the better mine will be.

 

And perhaps the Church has an explanation already in one of it's manuals...

 

 

Edit:  I know how to spell Priesthood, my fingers don't always comply.

Oh NO!!!!

 

There are contradictory statements "published by the church"??????

 

Please don't go apoplectic on us now BC.

 

Welcome to the confusing world of what is doctrine and what is not.  The answer is not to worry about it and go by the spirit.  Toleration of ambiguity is a good thing.

Edited December 8, 2013 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

I think Brant was the first person I heard to explain these verses as unrighteous racism on the part of the original authors (apologies if this is not something Brant has ever put forth). 

 

I think that would be the best explanation for the Church to adopt.  Accept the "racist" dark-skin teachings as authentic but incorrect. 

 

In other words, in this case, we need to be "better" than our scriptures.

I think they (or at least one) is heading there.   I've got all the conference talks I looked at the other day tangled in my mind but I think it was Elder Holland who came right and said that the Lamanites and Nephites applied unflattering characteristics to each other...but these were their cultural biases.  It was quite straightforward.

[David T]

That was Uchtdorf in his CES address on Truth.I wrote about that one too.http://www.withoutend.org/prophets-elephants-truth-charity/

[BCSpace]

Oh NO!!!!

 

There are contradictory statements "published by the church"??????

 

Please don't go apoplectic on us now BC.

 

Welcome to the confusing world of what is doctrine and what is not.  The answer is not to worry about it and go by the spirit.  Toleration of ambiguity is a good thing.

 

I know what is and is not doctrine because the way to identify it is clearly given.  It's not confusing and quite easy to tell.  Contradictory?  I've known for decades now that such doctrines exist.  Something we've recently discussed, for example, there is doctrine to support both a local and a global Garden state.

 

 

I think Brant was the first person I heard to explain these verses as unrighteous racism on the part of the original authors (apologies if this is not something Brant has ever put forth). 

 

I think that would be the best explanation for the Church to adopt.  Accept the "racist" dark-skin teachings as authentic but incorrect. 

 

In other words, in this case, we need to be "better" than our scriptures.

 

I think that would be the worst way to go and the Church doesn't ever seem to follow the unfaithful route.  It can look like it's splitting hairs from time to time but it always falls on the side of the prophets were inspired, the scriptures are true and are what they are claimed to be, what we did in the past is justified etc. and this is recently illustrated in the statement in question.  We are certainly no Reorganized LDS church by any means.

 

While the Church admits or implies no mistake with direct regard to the ban, perhaps in this case they made the mistake of following the wrong apologists in failing to tie up this loose end.  I prefer to come from a position of maximum strength and I've found that first assuming what the Church says is true or they actually said something in the first place is always the strongest position besides being the correct position.  It has always proven unassailable.

 

However, I freely admit that my own explanation of the global Flood doctrine matches the "teachings as authentic but incorrect" argument and so I certainly am not perfect in this regard.

 

I appreciate the attempts so far, but I think we have a long way to go.

Edited December 8, 2013 by BCSpace

[teddyaware]

In the new topical addition of Race and the Priesthood on lds.org....

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#8

 

....among other things it states:

 

 

The critical response in part has been to call the following Book of Mormon verses into question saying that the recent topical addition throws the BoM under the bus:

 

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

2 Nephi 5:21

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you;

Jacob 3:5

And 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.

Alma 3:6

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

3 Nephi 2:15

 

In the past some have promoted various theories.  One example is that 'black skin' or a 'skin of blackness' refers more to a spiritual condition that may be visible or otherwise discerned.  I'm not sure the Church has accepted this.  I have always differentiated between these BoM verses and the recent priesthood ban as a separate though I have not developed a working explanation as to why I do.

 

In addition, I personally have always separated these verses out from the issue of the priesthood ban mainly because there is no evidence of Laminates not being allowed to receive the priesthood once they converted though in a primarily OT culture, that may or may not have been an issue.

 

I'm doing a little more research and revisiting of the subject but I'm curious to know how any of you would respond to the criticism that these BoM verses are wrong or racist or can no longer be considered scripture etc.  Or at least perhaps this may provoke a little more research of your own which is always a good thing imho.

 

The ultimate response I personally will adopt, whatever it happens to be will have to assume these verses aren't racist and that LDS doctrine isn't or hasn't been racist.  I understand some of you have a much different opinion on that, but I believe the more varied the pov of people working on a response the better mine will be.

 

And perhaps the Church has an explanation already in one of it's manuals...

 

 

Edit:  I know how to spell Priesthood, my fingers don't always comply.

The Restored Church's latter-day banning of the priesthood based on lineage is not a new concept.

According to Abraham, as recorded in Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham in the Pear of Great Price, the

blessing of holding the Holy Priesthood was withheld from the lineage of the king of Egypt...

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father,

who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as

pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their

idolatry; (Abraham 1)

Perhaps my impression is mistaken, but it seems to me there are several Latter-day Saints on this board

who don't seem to realize the idea of withholding the priesthood to certain lineages -- whatever God's ultimate reason might be for doing so -- is not a new idea.

Previous to the 1978 revelation I was well aware of the above cited verses from Abraham, and clearly understood that they established a precedent. And though I didn't feel totally comfortable and at peace

with the priesthood ban, I understood that if God could withhold from certain lineages the blessings of

holding the priesthood in the past, why couldn't he do the same thing in these latter days if in His

divine economy He had His own reasons for doing so.

In this regard, it would have been interesting to observe how the members of the church would have

reacted if the latter-day priesthood ban barred, say, Russians or Poles from holding the priesthood

(for the sake of discussion, I just pulled those two ethnicities out of a hat). Would some members of the church be just as upset and embarrassed?

Bottom line? There is a clear, and undeniable precedent in LDS scripture for God withholding the

priesthood from some of His children based on blood lineage. This being so, one wonders why there's

been so much second guessing and upset with the modern leaders of the Church for enforcing a similar

priesthood ban in our day.

Finally, the 1978 revelation clearly indicates that previous modern Church leaders promised the

priesthood ban would be temporary, and when the time was fulfilled the Lord would extend the blessings of holding the priesthood to all worthy males. This doesn't sound like the ban was some sort of mistake.

And so we read:

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that AT SOME TIME, IN GOD'S ETERNAL PLAN, ALL OF OUR BRETHREN WHO ARE WORTHY MAY RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren,

spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE LONG-PROMISED DAY HAS COME when

every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its

divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the

blessings of the temple." (Official Declaration 2)

Edited December 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[BCSpace]

I think they (or at least one) is heading there.   I've got all the conference talks I looked at the other day tangled in my mind but I think it was Elder Holland who came right and said that the Lamanites and Nephites applied unflattering characteristics to each other...but these were their cultural biases.  It was quite straightforward.

 

 

I can see the LDS critic now bashing his head on the table:

 

"Damn that Joseph Smith and his far sightedness for including the last sentence in the title page of the Book of Mormon!"

[BCSpace]

Bottom line? There is a clear, and undeniable precedent in LDS scripture for God withholding the

priesthood from some of His children based on blood lineage. This being so, one wonders why there's

been so much second guessing and upset with the modern leaders of the Church for enforcing a similar

priesthood ban in our day.

Finally, the 1978 revelation clearly indicates that previous modern Church leaders promised the

priesthood ban would be temporary, and when the time was fulfilled the Lord would extend the blessings of holding the priesthood to all worthy males. This doesn't sound like the ban was some sort of mistake.

And so we read:

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that AT SOME TIME, IN GOD'S ETERNAL PLAN, ALL OF OUR BRETHREN WHO ARE WORTHY MAY RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren,

spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE LONG-PROMISED DAY HAS COME when

every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its

divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the

blessings of the temple." (Official Declaration 2)

 

Amen to that.  However, is there any indication in BoM that Lamanite converts were denied the Priesthood because they were Lamanite?  A secondary but related question is for much of the BoM they are practicing Mosiac Law but to what extant and was it any different?

[BCSpace]

its been awhile and correct me if I am wrong but didn't God originally put black skin on Cain and his seed to essentially hide them from Abel's possible vengeful seed? so it God was merciful to them to protect them, maybe that would work too?

 

From the official doctrine on the mark placed on Cain:

 

Moses 5:39–40. A Mark Was Placed upon Cain

It must be noted that the mark that was set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill him. A parallel that illustrates the difference between a mark and a curse might be the account of the Lord placing a mark and a curse upon the Lamanites and their posterity (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24; Alma 23:16–18). It should be noted that the curse was based on individual disobedience and that by obedience to God the curse was removed, although the mark may not have been removed immediately. Eventually, however, the mark was also removed from some (see 3 Nephi 2:12–16).

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-moses?lang=eng

 

It doesn't say that the mark placed on Cain was black skin, but it equates the mark as a parallel to the black skin placed on the Lamanites.  Notice how well this dovetails with the recent statement in question.  The doctrine takes pains to differentiate between the curse and the mark.  In the recent statement, the Church takes pains to disavow that black skin is a curse but not black skin as a mark.  Notice also in the same statement:

 

Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin.

 

Again a clear differentiation between a curse and a mark.  Black skin was not the curse in either the Cain or the Lamanite case.  It was the mark in the Lamanite case for sure according to the scriptures now in question.

[BCSpace]

I think they (or at least one) is heading there.   I've got all the conference talks I looked at the other day tangled in my mind but I think it was Elder Holland who came right and said that the Lamanites and Nephites applied unflattering characteristics to each other...but these were their cultural biases.  It was quite straightforward.

 

That was Uchtdorf in his CES address on Truth.I wrote about that one too.http://www.withouten...-truth-charity/

 

 

 

 

This?

 

 

In the Book of Mormon, both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other. The Nephites’ “truth” about the Lamanites was that they “were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people,”⁸ never able to accept the gospel. The Lamanites’ “truth” about the Nephites was that Nephi had stolen his brother’s birthright and that Nephi’s descendants were liars who continued to rob the Lamanites of what was rightfully theirs.⁹ These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all.

 

Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.

 

That they "applied unflattering characteristics to each other" doesn't seem to be a direction taken on this particular issue and he seems to completely avoid addressing the verses in question.  Obviously the counter from David's article is that we are being prepared for a change.  We can't be certain of the future of course, but changes in the past haven't matched the scope of the change (the denial of scripture) being proposed here.

[canard78]

its been awhile and correct me if I am wrong but didn't God originally put black skin on Cain and his seed to essentially hide them from Abel's possible vengeful seed? so it God was merciful to them to protect them, maybe that would work too?

Where does it say black skin?

15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. (Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 4)

[canard78]

That was Uchtdorf in his CES address on Truth.I wrote about that one too.http://www.withoutend.org/prophets-elephants-truth-charity/

Yes, I noticed that he talked about the Nephites false assumptions about the Lamanites. It was a new, and appealing, idea.

I don't think he called out the dark skin as one of them, but opened the door for it.

[CA Steve]

During the time of the priesthood ban what physical characteristic was used determine who was of the lineage of the King of Egypt?

[sweetpotatoh]

I think they (or at least one) is heading there.   I've got all the conference talks I looked at the other day tangled in my mind but I think it was Elder Holland who came right and said that the Lamanites and Nephites applied unflattering characteristics to each other...but these were their cultural biases.  It was quite straightforward.

Hugh Nibley argues that it is referring to culture, in his excellent series, Teachings of the Book of Mormon. Nephi fled from his Brothers. They taught their children that Nephi used religion to enslave his followers and that Nephi should never have ruled them and stole the right to govern. These "offenses" were integral to their culture. They brought their children up to believe that a Nephite was a liar and children of liars. The Lamanites culture predisposed them to reject the Gospel. Thus the darkness.

Ismael is an Arabic name, not Jewish. As such he would have not been white. So Nephi marries an Arabic Women. Their children weren't White. And we have interracial marriage very early on by a Prophet.

[Storm Rider]

Nice idea. But that's clearly not what the Lamanite "skins" were referring to.

 

 

 

How were those verses changed by Joseph's changes in the 1840 text, the last corrections made by Joseph Smith?

[Tacenda]

Please disregard if already used.  But found this when searching "predestination" on LDS.Org.

 

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-moses

 

God’s foreknowledge of all things does not hinder or limit our freedom to choose good or evil. Elder James E. Talmage, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote: “Many people have been led to regard this foreknowledge of God as a predestination whereby souls are designated for glory or condemnation even before their birth in the flesh, and irrespective of individual merit or demerit. This heretical doctrine seeks to rob Deity of mercy, justice, and love; it would make God appear capricious and selfish, directing and creating all things solely for His own glory, caring not for the suffering of His victims. How dreadful, how inconsistent is such an idea of God! It leads to the absurd conclusion that the mere knowledge of coming events must act as a determining influence in bringing about those occurrences. God’s knowledge of spiritual and of human nature enables Him to conclude with certainty as to the actions of any of His children under given conditions; yet that knowledge is not of compelling force upon the creature” (The Articles of Faith, 12th ed., [1924], 191).

 

ETA:  I think I meant this to be in the "Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations", but maybe it can work here as well. 

Edited December 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[canard78]

If the Lamanites broke the law of Moses and quickly bred with locals then their skin, within a generation, would have changed colour.

I was raised with a "mixed continent" perspective (I remember being really shocked when a mission companion adamantly and defensively said the Americas were empty when Lehi arrived).

With that in mind, I never believed that Laman and Lemuel woke up one day with different skin colour. I believed that their group broke mosaic marriage covenants and their offspring naturally looked different.

Equally, when a minority of dark-skinned people assimilate with a lighter-skinned group (as happened with some Lamanites), over a couple of generations their children would soon look like their group and the skin would get fairer.

As such I find it very difficult to get worked up by the "racism" in the BoM because I think it's simple genetics. The verses where God talks about him placing the mark on them etc, were for me just metaphorical, not a literal angel of skin pigment in the night. God uses natural laws and teaches us with them. That's part of his great economy of scale.

Edited December 8, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

Ismael is an Arabic name, not Jewish. As such he would have not been white. So Nephi marries an Arabic Women. Their children weren't White. And we have interracial marriage very early on by a Prophet.

Are you saying the Jews of Nephi's time were white?  In what sense please?

 

These days by "white" we generally are referring to those with a European heritage.  I am assuming you don't mean it like that.

 

I believe there is evidence that Ishmael was Sarai's brother.  If so, Nephi's DNA was already whatever group Ishmael was a part of.

Edited December 9, 2013 by calmoriah