Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[mormonnewb]

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.

Thank you, Brother! I've been waiting for three YEARS for another saint to acknowledge the obvious -- ancient Jews were NOT white. They looked just like their neighbors. This is the reason that Moses could be raised in Pharaoh's household. Because he looked like a typical Egyptian.

As for the validity of the priesthood ban, it presumes that God based his blessings on race when that was NEVER the case. Jewishness had nothing to do with race, but rather covenant. Those who accepted the Abrahamic covenant were Jews, regardless of race. That's why there were Ethiopian Jews several centuries before the birth of Christ and when there existence was discovered during the 20th century, their Israeli Jewish counterparts embraced them as fellow Jews.

Likewise, when salvation was extended to the Gentiles, it was not restricted to whites. By definition, a Gentile is simply anyone who is not Jewish. Therefore, blacks are Gentiles and entitled to the blessings of the Gospel.

What am I missing here?

[Stone holm]

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 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.

My wife often makes this argument, however, had you made the argument in 1976, which to my knowledge no one did, you would have been dismissed as an idiot. But it is a fairly common apologetic argument post 1978 .

[Calm]

Thank you, Brother! I've been waiting for three YEARS for another saint to acknowledge the obvious -- ancient Jews were NOT white

 

Funny, I was shocked that someone actually thought of Jews of Nephi's time as "white".  Maybe people don't acknowledge the obvious because it is obvious to them?  Even back in the day when I was a kid and thought the white and black referred to skin colour that changed overnight because of a curse, I knew Native Americans weren't black and if the Lehites were from the Middle East it seemed to me clear that they weren't the pasty white I was (and that I wished I wasn't...15 minutes in the sun for a nasty sunburn...not a way to have fun in the summer).

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

 

I'm well aware that there are scriptures that indicate a barring of the priesthood based on lineage. I have no problem seeing, reading, or admitting it. My problem is what is defined as lineage in the scriptures is definitely not the definition used in the modern context for the priesthood ban. African is not equivalent to being russian or pole. It's equivalent to being european or asian (ie. a variety of people with distinct ethnic groups, cultures, etc)....and in the context of the ban it was about racial heritage (black african specifically). Again, African is not an ethnicity: african-american, igbo, yoruba, etc are. I mentioned this in another thread...but if it was about lineage then it would make sense that a few of these out of hundreds of ethnic groups were banned....maybe the ones most likely linked with egypt, then you'd have something. But that's not what you got. The lineage as used in scriptural context (that actually has to do with groups of people related by blood and probably had minimal drastic physical distinctions) is not the same as the use of lineage in the context of the ban which is defined more by huge geographic regions based roughly on outsiders perception of racial categories, then actual blood ties.

 

Plus there's the added problem of this being the dispensation of the fullness of times where one of the overarching traits was the priesthood being available to all. The ban was a temporary loss of this vision of restoration that had existed in the primitive church as well as the early restoration.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited December 9, 2013 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

As for the OP.....basically what canard said. I feel that it's from the perspective of Mormon where their intermixing and adoption into a foreign cultures would have become mythic in oration. In reading the text there are problems with assuming that there was a clear distinction of lamanite and nephite based solely on skin color. For one there was a fairly fluid movement between the groups, particularly in Alma. For another the mark was apparently lifted prior to the coming of christ...and it never is mentioned as a distinction between the 2 overarching groups again. 

 

I actually enjoy the more nuanced picture quite a bit....of a people who have become distinct and separated that slowly comes back together and intermingles to a point that whatever physical distinctions between them lose significance and that they begin to relearn to be one people. And finally how this is a point of preparation before Christ makes them truly one people. So I generally don't feel a need to search for a defense of it.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited December 9, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Stone holm]

I'm well aware that there are scriptures that indicate a barring of the priesthood based on lineage. I have no problem seeing, reading, or admitting it. My problem is what is defined as lineage in the scriptures is definitely not the definition used in the modern context for the priesthood ban. African is not equivalent to being russian or pole. It's equivalent to being european or asian....and in the context of the ban it was about racial heritage (black african specifically). Again, African is not an ethnicity: african-american, igbo, yoruba, etc are. I mentioned this in another thread...but if it was about lineage then it would make sense that a few of these out of hundreds of ethnic groups were banned....maybe the ones most likely linked with egypt, then you'd have something. But that's not what you got. The lineage as used in scriptural context (that actually has to do with groups of people related by blood and probably had minimal drastic physical distinctions) is not the same as the use of lineage in the context of the ban which is defined more by huge geographic regions based roughly on outsiders perception of racial categories, then actual blood ties.

 

Plus there's the added problem of this being the dispensation of the fullness of times where one of the overarching traits was the priesthood being available to all. The ban was a temporary loss of this vision of restoration that had existed in the primitive church.

 

With luv,

BD

Gave you a bump on this. Lineage really only becomes significant towards the end when they are trying to limit the ban. As for African-American not being a racial phrase, really? It is virtually synonymous with black as my generation would have used or negron as my parents generation would have used in polite company.

[BlueDreams]

 (and that I wished I wasn't...15 minutes in the sun for a nasty sunburn...not a way to have fun in the summer).

 

If it makes you feel better, I burn just about as fast. Although that started only a couple years ago. I joked, angrily, that my white side kicked in in the worst way possible. It was probably a curse from God from relentlessly bragging to my full white-and-pasty friends about how easy it was for me to tan deeply and that it would take me a good 4-5 hrs before there were any signs of burning. Pride cometh before a fall and all that

 

With luv,

BD 

[Stone holm]

If it makes you feel better, I burn just about as fast. Although that started only a couple years ago. I joked, angrily, that my white side kicked in in the worst way possible. It was probably a curse from God from relentlessly bragging to my full white-and-pasty friends about how easy it was for me to tan deeply and that it would take me a good 4-5 hrs before there were any signs of burning. Pride cometh before a fall and all that

 

With luv,

BD

And a fall cometh before skin cancer...

[BlueDreams]

Gave you a bump on this. Lineage really only becomes significant towards the end when they are trying to limit the ban. As for African-American not being a racial phrase, really? It is virtually synonymous with black as my generation would have used or negron as my parents generation would have used in polite company.

 

Yes, really. Think of it this way....if you went to haiti and started calling all the black people there african-american, it probably wouldn't go over well. It's synonymous with black in the U.S. for the most part, because it is the overwhelming dominate group with black-african ancestry in the U.S. But there are plenty who it doesn't fit. For example I will always tell people that I'm half black or half nigerian. But I would never say that I was half african-american nor do I feel any real connection to the ethnic group. It's not accurate and my cultural experience differs heavily from it.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Sevenbak]

Food for thought...

 

Joseph Smith describes Christ as having blue eyes and a fair complexion.

 

Contemporaries of Christ, mainly Roman authorities, (Pontius Pilot, for example) as well as Josephus, also described Christ as having blue eyes.

[Stone holm]

Yes, really. Think of it this way....if you went to haiti and started calling all the black people there african-american, it probably wouldn't go over well. It's synonymous with black in the U.S. for the most part, because it is the overwhelming dominate group with black-african ancestry in the U.S. But there are plenty who it doesn't fit. For example I will always tell people that I'm half black or half nigerian. But I would never say that I was half african-american nor do I feel any real connection to the ethnic group. It's not accurate and my cultural experience differs heavily from it.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Oh BlueDreams tell me it ain't so, Bush called Africans African-American, so it must be right....

[Stone holm]

Thank you, Brother! I've been waiting for three YEARS for another saint to acknowledge the obvious -- ancient Jews were NOT white. They looked just like their neighbors. This is the reason that Moses could be raised in Pharaoh's household. Because he looked like a typical Egyptian.

As for the validity of the priesthood ban, it presumes that God based his blessings on race when that was NEVER the case. Jewishness had nothing to do with race, but rather covenant. Those who accepted the Abrahamic covenant were Jews, regardless of race. That's why there were Ethiopian Jews several centuries before the birth of Christ and when there existence was discovered during the 20th century, their Israeli Jewish counterparts embraced them as fellow Jews.

Likewise, when salvation was extended to the Gentiles, it was not restricted to whites. By definition, a Gentile is simply anyone who is not Jewish. Therefore, blacks are Gentiles and entitled to the blessings of the Gospel.

What am I missing here?

Not all embraced them, but genetics eventually confirmed the Ethiopians as Jewish. The battle was over whether they could claim a right to Israeli citizenship under the law of the return. To say Jewishness is simply based on just accepting the covenant is misleading.

[mormonnewb]

Funny, I was shocked that someone actually thought of Jews of Nephi's time as "white".  Maybe people don't acknowledge the obvious because it is obvious to them?  Even back in the day when I was a kid and thought the white and black referred to skin colour that changed overnight because of a curse, I knew Native Americans weren't black and if the Lehites were from the Middle East it seemed to me clear that they weren't the pasty white I was (and that I wished I wasn't...15 minutes in the sun for a nasty sunburn...not a way to have fun in the summer).

I totally understand why people think that ancient Jews were white. After all, most of us grew up looking at pictures of a Scandanavian Jesus and Charlton Heston as Moses. I'm black and even zi have a hard time not picturing Jesus with long blonde hair and blue eyes.

To the church's credit, It has begun to cast characters in its videos that look more authentic. In the long run, I think this will help us to become a more intregrated church (from TOP to bottom) because its very difficult for people to worship a brown Jesus and still maintain subconscious notions of the general superiority of whites and the purity of white skin (and shirts).

[mormonnewb]

Not all embraced them, but genetics eventually confirmed the Ethiopians as Jewish.

Not sure where you come to this conclusion. According to the source of all truth -- Wikipedia -- almost all major DNA studies have concluded that the Ethopian Jews share far more in common with their non-Jewish Ethiopians counterparts than they do with middle eastern Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel#DNA_evidence

Furthermore, when Israel helped many of these people to escape the Ethiopian Civil War, there was no such DNA testing. Israel did so solely on the basis of their religious affiliation.

[Stone holm]

Not sure where you come to this conclusion. According to the source of all truth -- Wikipedia -- almost all major DNA studies have concluded that the Ethopian Jews share far more in common with their non-Jewish Ethiopians counterparts than they do with middle eastern Jews.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel#DNA_evidence

Furthermore, when Israel helped many of these people to escape the Ethiopian Civil War, there was no such DNA testing. Israel did so solely on the basis of their religious affiliation.

While at Notre Dame , I recall reading English editions of Israeli newspapers protesting the inclusion of the Ethiopians under the law of the return. A careful reading of the link you reference is not inconsistent with what I stated. Edited December 9, 2013 by Stone holm

[mfbukowski]

Funny, I was shocked that someone actually thought of Jews of Nephi's time as "white".  Maybe people don't acknowledge the obvious because it is obvious to them?  Even back in the day when I was a kid and thought the white and black referred to skin colour that changed overnight because of a curse, I knew Native Americans weren't black and if the Lehites were from the Middle East it seemed to me clear that they weren't the pasty white I was (and that I wished I wasn't...15 minutes in the sun for a nasty sunburn...not a way to have fun in the summer).

I am leaving the church.

 

You mean all those illustrations of Nephites as Nordic gods are inaccurate?  With all the rippling muscles?  Like they walked straight out of a Wagnerian opera?

 

This is too much for me to bear.  

[mormonnewb]

Food for thought...

 

Joseph Smith describes Christ as having blue eyes and a fair complexion.

 

Contemporaries of Christ, mainly Roman authorities, (Pontius Pilot, for example) as well as Josephus, also described Christ as having blue eyes.

I believe that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in exactly the form that Joseph would expect. How else would Joseph recognize him or convince others that he had seen the Christ if he described him as a 5'5 Palestinian? And while our Prophets teach us that Heavenly Father and Jesus have bodies, we also know that Heavenly Father can appear in a variety of other forms (e.g., a burning bush, a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, etc.). Likewise, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples, Cleopas, on the road to Emmaus in such a form that Cleopas didn't recognize him.

As for the contemporary descriptions, Josephus doesn't describe Christ's appearance (which makes sense confused ring that he never met Christ). In a letter, Pilate is supposed to have described Jesus' blue eyes and golden hair. However, from my limited research, this letter is widely believed to be a forgery.

On the other hand, if you simply Google, "What did Jesus look like?", you'll see the current scholastic consensus of his appearance and it's not remotely Nordic.

[Duncan]

I believe that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in exactly the form that Joseph would expect. How else would Joseph recognize him or convince others that he had seen the Christ if he described him as a 5'5 Palestinian? And while our Prophets teach us that Heavenly Father and Jesus have bodies, we also know that Heavenly Father can appear in a variety of other forms (e.g., a burning bush, a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, etc.). Likewise, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples, Cleopas, on the road to Emmaus in such a form that Cleopas didn't recognize him.

As for the contemporary descriptions, Josephus doesn't describe Christ's appearance (which makes sense confused ring that he never met Christ). In a letter, Pilate is supposed to have described Jesus' blue eyes and golden hair. However, from my limited research, this letter is widely believed to be a forgery.

On the other hand, if you simply Google, "What did Jesus look like?", you'll see the current scholastic consensus of his appearance and it's not remotely Nordic.

 

 

read Section 110, he's changed a bit!

[Sevenbak]

I believe that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in exactly the form that Joseph would expect. How else would Joseph recognize him or convince others that he had seen the Christ if he described him as a 5'5 Palestinian? And while our Prophets teach us that Heavenly Father and Jesus have bodies, we also know that Heavenly Father can appear in a variety of other forms (e.g., a burning bush, a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, etc.). Likewise, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples, Cleopas, on the road to Emmaus in such a form that Cleopas didn't recognize him.

As for the contemporary descriptions, Josephus doesn't describe Christ's appearance (which makes sense confused ring that he never met Christ). In a letter, Pilate is supposed to have described Jesus' blue eyes and golden hair. However, from my limited research, this letter is widely believed to be a forgery.

On the other hand, if you simply Google, "What did Jesus look like?", you'll see the current scholastic consensus of his appearance and it's not remotely Nordic.

 

Or, one could assume that the scriptures are accurate and that God the Father was really Jesus' Father, and not some palestinian.  We don't know what the Father looked like, not what color his eyes were, other than that he looked like the son.

 

And as regard to this:  "you'll see the current scholastic consensus of his appearance"...

 

Do you mean this little Gem?

 

 

 

Where did God the Father get his Palestinian blood from?

Yeah, leave it to science to take the divine nature out of Christ.  No thanks.

 

Further, and here's the other element.  It may seem racist to our modern sensibilities, but Nephi describes Mary in detail.  She is called white and fair... even exceedingly such.

 

1 Nephi 11:13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of ^aNazareth I beheld a ^bvirgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

 

I'll go with Joseph Smith and Jesus' contemporaries on this one. (and no, it wasn't just Pontius and Josephus, there were others) A fair completion and blue eyes.  We don't have to know all the details.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Sevenbak

[Sevenbak]

read Section 110, he's changed a bit!

In His glorified state, yes.

[Damien the Leper]

From the movie Dogma: "Jesus wasn't white. Jesus was black. [bleep] owes me five bucks." - Rufus the black 13th apostle

[california boy]

I believe that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in exactly the form that Joseph would expect. How else would Joseph recognize him or convince others that he had seen the Christ if he described him as a 5'5 Palestinian? And while our Prophets teach us that Heavenly Father and Jesus have bodies, we also know that Heavenly Father can appear in a variety of other forms (e.g., a burning bush, a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, etc.). Likewise, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples, Cleopas, on the road to Emmaus in such a form that Cleopas didn't recognize him.

As for the contemporary descriptions, Josephus doesn't describe Christ's appearance (which makes sense confused ring that he never met Christ). In a letter, Pilate is supposed to have described Jesus' blue eyes and golden hair. However, from my limited research, this letter is widely believed to be a forgery.

On the other hand, if you simply Google, "What did Jesus look like?", you'll see the current scholastic consensus of his appearance and it's not remotely Nordic.

This is quite an interesting post to me.  So you think that Christ is a shapeshifter?  He can appear in any form he wants?  Does that mean that He could shift from the form of a man to a woman?  This is quite a different thought than what I had always assumed.  And you do bring up some pretty good examples of this idea.  Does anyone else have an idea on this subject?  I guess it should probably be a separate thread.  So maybe I shouldn't derail this one.  Just interested in this idea.

[Calm]

I am leaving the church.

 

You mean all those illustrations of Nephites as Nordic gods are inaccurate?  With all the rippling muscles?  Like they walked straight out of a Wagnerian opera?

 

This is too much for me to bear.  

The rippling abs and massive biceps were not as common in my youth as we have now...at least not as many men were portrayed with their shirts off enough to tell at least...even the Batman of my youth was not exactly well toned from what I could tell though I remember Superman being a bit more impressive.

 

 

 

 

 

Since those BoM pictures never matched what I saw around me, I never accepted them as even close to what the Nephites actually looked like.  I always envisioned more of a lean look like most of the Native Americans or the nomads of Arabia I saw in movies.

Edited December 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

 

Where did God the Father get his Palestinian blood from?

Yeah, leave it to science to take the divine nature out of Christ.  No thanks.

By Palestinian, I simply meant that Jesus was born in the part of the world that we call "Palestine." As for where the Father gets his Palestinian blood, that seems to assume that Heavenly Father's exalted body contains a specific blood type. it also seems to imply that the Palestinian blood type would diminish his divinity. I really hope that is not the case because if we go on the assumption that the Father and the Son share the same "Jewish" blood type, we're in big trouble!

Science tells us that, "Arabs and Jews are essentially a single population, and that Palestinians are slap bang in the middle of the different Jewish populations ."

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

In other words, Palestinian blood and Jewish blood are largely indistiniguishable, so unless your hypothesis is that Heavenly Father is Chinese or Swedish, then Heavenly Father's blood is virtually indistinguishable from that of a ... gasp ... Palestinian.

Of course, the larger question is why are you so vested in Heavenly Father's and Jesus' whiteness? Why do they somehow become less divine unless they look like you?

[cdowis]

del.

Edited December 9, 2013 by cdowis