Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[Sevenbak]

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?

 

No, the larger question is why I despise political correctness for its own sake, and the proverbial burning at the stake of anyone who doesn't fall in line with modern scientific and personal sensibilities.

 

The scriptures are plain that Mary was white, and that God the Father was Christ's father, not a mortal from the middle east.  

 

I really don't care if you try to paint me as racist.  

 

There's a movement in the black community to say that Christ was black too.  I guess some people will do whatever it takes to wrest the scriptures to feel more comfortable with their own ill placed notions of justice and equality.

 

The bottom line for me is that God is not a racist, no matter how our society tries to understand, and in some cases rewrite history, in a modern politically correct context.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Sevenbak

[CV75]

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.

RE: "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."

I think “is” refers to the current world we live in. I don't see the Lamanite curse recorded in the Book or Mormon reflecting a theory or general principle, but as an account of a specific edict for a specific people in a specific time, place, culture, etc. where it fulfilled the Lord's specific purposes. The lesson to be gained since it was written for our time: the Lord can curse the rebellious just as clearly as if their skin changed, and those with eyes to see will not mingle their ways with theirs but stand in holy places.

I also think the above statement refers to what we generally consider to be black skin today ("black skin is..."). Who knows what the Book of Mormon people considered to be "black skin", "black", or "skin."

[thesometimesaint]

The truly important thing is that we see ourselves in Mary.

[BlueDreams]

The scriptures are plain that Mary was white, and that God the Father was Christ's father, not a mortal from the middle east. .... 

 

The bottom line for me is that God is not a racist, no matter how our society tries to understand, and in some cases rewrite history, in a modern politically correct context.

 

You don't have to be PC to assume the Jesus in mortality probably looked a little like the people around him. Also, I don't see mormonnewb saying that Jesus was black (although I find it hilarious when people have a problem with him being portrayed as such...like a swedish model is any closer....or that accuracy in looks somehow matters.) PC, in the LDS context, to me is portraying him as white, not black. In fact there's a hilarious story that portrays this. In the BYU bookstore, they sell a bunch of religious art and I had a boss who enjoyed the less usual LDS art. He once brought in a picture portraying Jesus as black (among all the other art portraying him as white). There were quite a few who complained and it was pulled....until the black community on campus got word as well and the president of BYU insisted it be put back on the shelves. It was then sold and that was the last of black Jesus.

 

Lastly the scripture of Mary being white, does not mean that she was literally white like the expectation of popular jargon found in modern times. White, in the BoM, as pointed out throughout this thread, does not necessarily mean white as found in the modern context. Especially in the middle of a vision/spiritual phenomena. For example in 3 Nephi it talks about how the people became white like jesus in part of the spiritual uplifting....white with a people who were supposedly already "white." It's a symbolic use for purity/unity....not an accurate depiction of what Mary actually looked like in mortality.   

 

Really lastly....why in the world does it even matter? PC or not in whichever direction, Whether Jesus was white, black, pink, or albino, it only matters that He was the savior of the world. How in the world is any of this actually pertinent to the original post of this thread? 

 

With luv,

BD

[jkwilliams]

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)

 

Historically, the following from the Book of Moses has been interpreted as referring to skin:

 

 7:22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

[Stone holm]

 

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.

 

 

Interesting concept, one would suppose that Heavenly Father was somehow a blend of all the races (if one subscribes to BY's position that He and Heavenly Mother created Adam via procreation).  In which case, it would be unlikely that he was double recessive -- blonde hair and blue eyes -- but who knows.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have any problem with God looking any way he wants, as long as it is like me.

[Sevenbak]

You don't have to be PC to assume the Jesus in mortality probably looked a little like the people around him. Also, I don't see mormonnewb saying that Jesus was black (although I find it hilarious when people have a problem with him being portrayed as such...like a swedish model is any closer....or that accuracy in looks somehow matters.) PC, in the LDS context, to me is portraying him as white, not black. In fact there's a hilarious story that portrays this. In the BYU bookstore, they sell a bunch of religious art and I had a boss who enjoyed the less usual LDS art. He once brought in a picture portraying Jesus as black (among all the other art portraying him as white). There were quite a few who complained and it was pulled....until the black community on campus got word as well and the president of BYU insisted it be put back on the shelves. It was then sold and that was the last of black Jesus.

 

Lastly the scripture of Mary being white, does not mean that she was literally white like the expectation of popular jargon found in modern times. White, in the BoM, as pointed out throughout this thread, does not necessarily mean white as found in the modern context. Especially in the middle of a vision/spiritual phenomena. For example in 3 Nephi it talks about how the people became white like jesus in part of the spiritual uplifting....white with a people who were supposedly already "white." It's a symbolic use for purity/unity....not an accurate depiction of what Mary actually looked like in mortality.   

 

Really lastly....why in the world does it even matter? PC or not in whichever direction, Whether Jesus was white, black, pink, or albino, it only matters that He was the savior of the world. How in the world is any of this actually pertinent to the original post of this thread? 

 

With luv,

BD

BD, I appreciate the sentiment, but we don't have to assume, because we have the modern accounts of both the first vision and the school of the prophets, where Christ is described with brown hair and blue eyes.  We also have multiple accounts from ancient contemporaries as well as those close to his time describing his eye color.  Further, we have ancient native American accounts of a white god with blue eyes.  

 

This is not racist.  This doesn't need some forced modern association with Nazis or Arians to change the ancient or historical meanings.  All of this only matters in that the growing popularity of being so racially sensitive to the extreme, even in comparing ancient times to our modern sensibilities, is not healthy, imo.

 

I believe it was Elder Maxwell that likened political correctness as a step toward apostacy.  I see it and its fruits permeating our society big time, and I for one am very tired and cautious of its consequences, intended or otherwise.

 

I don't mean to offend, and I don't mean to take offense, but there's my thing, like it or not.

[David T]

 We also have multiple accounts from ancient contemporaries as well as those close to his time describing his eye color.  

 

You keep saying this. CFR. You mentioned Josephus - As far as I am aware, Josephus never described Jesus in anything extant we have.

[Calm]

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.

My memory says that she isn't the only one described in this way, including in the Old and New Testament, but no time to look...got to go get ready for a doctor's appt in a few minutes.  If so, it may mean something besides the white skin of the Northern European.  Even if it is solely about skin colour and not referring to a spiritual nature or sexual innocence or something along those terms, it would still need to be understood in the context of her environment and what skin tone range were likely there at that time.

[Calm]

This is quite an interesting post to me.  So you think that Christ is a shapeshifter?  He can appear in any form he wants?  

Since people nowadays can shift their eye and hair colour at will and even skin colour with more work, I don't think shapeshifting need enter into the conversation even if one assumes Christ changes his appearance for some reason.

[Calm]

 

The scriptures are plain that Mary was white, and that God the Father was Christ's father, not a mortal from the middle east.  

The scriptures also say there was nothing about Jesus that would cause him to stand out from the crowd, IIRC.  If so, having the pasty white skin and blue eyes of Northern Europeans would tend not to be an option.

[Calm]

I believe it was Elder Maxwell that likened political correctness as a step toward apostacy. 

 

Assuming that people who are disagreeing with you are doing so because they are buying into political correctness and then making this statement that political correctness is a step towards apostacy....

 

Now that is one judgmental position...not PC at all.  Be Proud in your nonPCness...but unfortunately still likely wrong in people on the board's motivation.

[mormonnewb]

The scriptures are plain that Mary was white, and that God the Father was Christ's father, not a mortal from the middle east.  

 

I'm not sure that I understand.  If the God the Father is brown-skinned, then He is simply "a mortal from the middle east"?  However, if God the Father has white skin, then He is an exalted being?  Or am I missing something?  Are you saying that God the Father had no particularly skin color and that he simply assumed Mary's white skin as a default?  Seriously, I come from a traditional where God the Father does not have a temporal body, so I'm a little unclear on how this would work for Him.

 

 

 

There's a movement in the black community to say that Christ was black too.  I guess some people will do whatever it takes to wrest the scriptures to feel more comfortable with their own ill placed notions of justice and equality.

 

This is news to me and I've been black most of my entire life (I don't usually count the years I spent in Orange County ... or Provo ... hehe).  Of course, you seem to be far more familiar with the "black community" than I am so perhaps, you can also explain what "ill placed notion of justice and equality" is driving this movement.

 

Seriously, Dear Brother, I am really trying to understand where your concern lies with recognizing the very real possibility that Jesus might have looked just like EVERYONE ELSE around Him (He certainly looked very similar to His disciples, which is why Judas had to kiss Him to differentiate him from the others at the time of his arrest).  Are you concerned that if Jesus is not white-skinned, He will not be worthy of worship?  Or are you concerned that this change of skin color is just a slippery slope where we'll begin to change more important attributes about Him?  Or are you concerned that minority groups will insist upon "special privileges" as a result of Jesus not being white?  Or is it something else?

[mormonnewb]

 

 

Really lastly....why in the world does it even matter? PC or not in whichever direction, Whether Jesus was white, black, pink, or albino, it only matters that He was the savior of the world. How in the world is any of this actually pertinent to the original post of this thread? 

 

With luv,

BD

 

You raise a good question as to why this even matters?  Are we just arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a needle?  By the way, I contend the answer is 97.  However, in this case, there is a practical implication of this discussion.

 

My 9-year-old son came to me the other day asking when he would become white.  When I asked why this beautiful brown-skinned boy wanted to be white, he explained that Jesus and Heavenly Father are white and all of the good people in the Book of Mormon are white and all of his friends at church are white and so he wanted to be white too.  Interestingly enough, the same sentiment was expressed by the only Latino girl in our ward.  This is one of the most beautiful olive-skinned girls that you have ever seen, but her mother explained to me that she is constantly rueful that she doesn't have blond hair and blue eyes like a "good Mormon girl."

 

And while this might seem to be just the product of being minority in an almost white community, it's more than that.  My son has lived in this community his whole life and did not have a problem with his skin color until we joined the Church.  In fact, he didn't even know he was black until fairly recently, because skin color was about as distinctive for him as eye color or hair color.  However, that changed when he joined the Church because there is a subtle presumption in so much of our culture that "white is right."  And therefore, while I'm absolutely sure that none of his primary teachers ever told him that being black is bad and that only whites are righteous, I can certainly see where he came to this conclusion.  After all, the pictures all around the church seem to indicate that when it came for Heavenly Father to provide salvation to all of mankind, He sent out white man to do it.  To restore the Gospel, He called upon a white man.  To guide His Church today, Heavenly Father uses white men who must even wear white shirts while serving the Lord.  This is a pretty powerful message for a 9-year old boy (or even his 46 year old father).

 

Now, am I not saying that we should pretend that Joseph Smith was black or that we call, say, an Indian apostle, for "messaging purposes"?  Of course not.  Truth is truth.  However, in the same vein, it seems just as bad to pretend that Jesus was white, when it's almost certainly the case that He was not.  It simply reinforces a notion of white supremacy in the one church where such a notion is unacceptable.  If we were just one of many Protestant denominations, then it would be okay to have our own "whites mostly" club and non-whites could go elsewhere.  But as "the one true church," we must make room for everyone and I certainly don't see how we help do so by using historically inaccurate depictions of Christ that only make it harder for some non-white members to feel fully part of the tribe.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I believe (without any proof) that the leadership is cognizant of this problem and is gradually bringing our graphic and video images in line with historical accuracy.  However, as evidenced by a few of the comments on this thread, there will be some member push back, so they'll likely go slow in doing so.

[Stone holm]

You raise a good question as to why this even matters?  Are we just arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a needle?  By the way, I contend the answer is 97.  However, in this case, there is a practical implication of this discussion.

 

My 9-year-old son came to me the other day asking when he would become white.  When I asked why this beautiful brown-skinned boy wanted to be white, he explained that Jesus and Heavenly Father are white and all of the good people in the Book of Mormon are white and all of his friends at church are white and so he wanted to be white too.  Interestingly enough, the same sentiment was expressed by the only Latino girl in our ward.  This is one of the most beautiful olive-skinned girls that you have ever seen, but her mother explained to me that she is constantly rueful that she doesn't have blond hair and blue eyes like a "good Mormon girl."

 

And while this might seem to be just the product of being minority in an almost white community, it's more than that.  My son has lived in this community his whole life and did not have a problem with his skin color until we joined the Church.  In fact, he didn't even know he was black until fairly recently, because skin color was about as distinctive for him as eye color or hair color.  However, that changed when he joined the Church because there is a subtle presumption in so much of our culture that "white is right."  And therefore, while I'm absolutely sure that none of his primary teachers ever told him that being black is bad and that only whites are righteous, I can certainly see where he came to this conclusion.  After all, the pictures all around the church seem to indicate that when it came for Heavenly Father to provide salvation to all of mankind, He sent out white man to do it.  To restore the Gospel, He called upon a white man.  To guide His Church today, Heavenly Father uses white men who must even wear white shirts while serving the Lord.  This is a pretty powerful message for a 9-year old boy (or even his 46 year old father).

 

Now, am I not saying that we should pretend that Joseph Smith was black or that we call, say, an Indian apostle, for "messaging purposes"?  Of course not.  Truth is truth.  However, in the same vein, it seems just as bad to pretend that Jesus was white, when it's almost certainly the case that He was not.  It simply reinforces a notion of white supremacy in the one church where such a notion is unacceptable.  If we were just one of many Protestant denominations, then it would be okay to have our own "whites mostly" club and non-whites could go elsewhere.  But as "the one true church," we must make room for everyone and I certainly don't see how we help do so by using historically inaccurate depictions of Christ that only make it harder for some non-white members to feel fully part of the tribe.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I believe (without any proof) that the leadership is cognizant of this problem and is gradually bringing our graphic and video images in line with historical accuracy.  However, as evidenced by a few of the comments on this thread, there will be some member push back, so they'll likely go slow in doing so.

 

Have a black grandson, who insisted to his white mother that he was white.  Oh the heartache....

[canard78]

My memory says that she isn't the only one described in this way, including in the Old and New Testament, but no time to look...got to go get ready for a doctor's appt in a few minutes. If so, it may mean something besides the white skin of the Northern European. Even if it is solely about skin colour and not referring to a spiritual nature or sexual innocence or something along those terms, it would still need to be understood in the context of her environment and what skin tone range were likely there at that time.

To paraphrase Steve Beko (I think) while on trial on a South African court for racial equality campaigning:

Judge: "Why do you people call yourself black? You're more brown than black."

Beko: "Why do you people call yourself white? You're more pink than white."

As for the "fair and white." It doesn't say skin. White is used time and again for purity in the bible. I don't see why it wouldn't apply here too. (I know you weren't saying it means skin, I was building on your point)

[mfbukowski]

Historically, the following from the Book of Moses has been interpreted as referring to skin:

So?

 

Now it's interpreted differently.

[BCSpace]

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 .

 

To which argument are you referring?

[mfbukowski]

You raise a good question as to why this even matters?  Are we just arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a needle?  By the way, I contend the answer is 97.  However, in this case, there is a practical implication of this discussion.

 

My 9-year-old son came to me the other day asking when he would become white.  When I asked why this beautiful brown-skinned boy wanted to be white, he explained that Jesus and Heavenly Father are white and all of the good people in the Book of Mormon are white and all of his friends at church are white and so he wanted to be white too.  Interestingly enough, the same sentiment was expressed by the only Latino girl in our ward.  This is one of the most beautiful olive-skinned girls that you have ever seen, but her mother explained to me that she is constantly rueful that she doesn't have blond hair and blue eyes like a "good Mormon girl."

You definitely need to move to LA.

 

I don't think we have a single blonde person in our ward, except of course when blondness comes out of a bottle.

[BCSpace]

Historically, the following from the Book of Moses has been interpreted as referring to skin:

 

So?

 

Now it's interpreted differently.

 

 

 

Not by the Church.  The footnote for Moses 7:22 refers specifically to a verse on skin color.

Edited December 9, 2013 by BCSpace

[omni]

You raise a good question as to why this even matters?  Are we just arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a needle?  By the way, I contend the answer is 97.  However, in this case, there is a practical implication of this discussion.

 

My 9-year-old son came to me the other day asking when he would become white.  When I asked why this beautiful brown-skinned boy wanted to be white, he explained that Jesus and Heavenly Father are white and all of the good people in the Book of Mormon are white and all of his friends at church are white and so he wanted to be white too.  Interestingly enough, the same sentiment was expressed by the only Latino girl in our ward.  This is one of the most beautiful olive-skinned girls that you have ever seen, but her mother explained to me that she is constantly rueful that she doesn't have blond hair and blue eyes like a "good Mormon girl."

 

And while this might seem to be just the product of being minority in an almost white community, it's more than that.  My son has lived in this community his whole life and did not have a problem with his skin color until we joined the Church.  In fact, he didn't even know he was black until fairly recently, because skin color was about as distinctive for him as eye color or hair color.  However, that changed when he joined the Church because there is a subtle presumption in so much of our culture that "white is right."  And therefore, while I'm absolutely sure that none of his primary teachers ever told him that being black is bad and that only whites are righteous, I can certainly see where he came to this conclusion.  After all, the pictures all around the church seem to indicate that when it came for Heavenly Father to provide salvation to all of mankind, He sent out white man to do it.  To restore the Gospel, He called upon a white man.  To guide His Church today, Heavenly Father uses white men who must even wear white shirts while serving the Lord.  This is a pretty powerful message for a 9-year old boy (or even his 46 year old father).

 

Now, am I not saying that we should pretend that Joseph Smith was black or that we call, say, an Indian apostle, for "messaging purposes"?  Of course not.  Truth is truth.  However, in the same vein, it seems just as bad to pretend that Jesus was white, when it's almost certainly the case that He was not.  It simply reinforces a notion of white supremacy in the one church where such a notion is unacceptable.  If we were just one of many Protestant denominations, then it would be okay to have our own "whites mostly" club and non-whites could go elsewhere.  But as "the one true church," we must make room for everyone and I certainly don't see how we help do so by using historically inaccurate depictions of Christ that only make it harder for some non-white members to feel fully part of the tribe.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I believe (without any proof) that the leadership is cognizant of this problem and is gradually bringing our graphic and video images in line with historical accuracy.  However, as evidenced by a few of the comments on this thread, there will be some member push back, so they'll likely go slow in doing so.

 

The church is getting better at recognizing its diversity.  For an example, during next General Conference look at how many camera shots the one black guy in MoTab is in.  If one were just viewing the close-ups, you'd think half the choir was African-American.  Baby steps...baby steps...

[BCSpace]

The church is getting better at recognizing its diversity.  For an example, during next General Conference look at how many camera shots the one black guy in MoTab is in.  If one were just viewing the close-ups, you'd think half the choir was African-American.  Baby steps...baby steps...

 

The doctrine of the Church is that diversity for it's own sake is meaningless( http://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters ).  Say rather that the Church is very good at PR.  Not only in the visual media as per your example, but in official statements in which the doctrine doesn't change but instead a different aspect of the doctrine is presented to deflect criticism.

[blooit]

The church is getting better at recognizing its diversity.  For an example, during next General Conference look at how many camera shots the one black guy in MoTab is in.  If one were just viewing the close-ups, you'd think half the choir was African-American.  Baby steps...baby steps...

 

I've heard this mentioned several time, but I disagree.  I think we notice those shots more because that one person stands out.  If a person in the choir had pink hair we would wonder why they were in so many shots.  The choir isn't that big, so they are all getting a lot of face time, but the "white people all look alike."

[mfbukowski]

Not by the Church.  The footnote for Moses 7:22 refers specifically to a verse on skin color.

The footnote?   Are you serious???  Who cares what a footnote says?  Are all the footnotes themselves scripture???  Why do they change them all the time then??

The actual scripture never uses the term "skin" and is subject to interpretation.  In fact I have seen interpretations of this scripture which interpret it spiritually, that they became spiritually "blackened" and that "skin", when it IS mentioned, refers to "scales of darkness" (2Nephi 30:6) over their spiritual eyes.

 

First- the scripture you are quoting, does NOT mention "skin" at all.

 

  22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

 

And this from the LDS Genesis site for those scriptures which do actually mention "skin":

 

 

Just last summer, a sister approached me in Cleveland and told me that she was bothered by 2 Nephi 5:21 (as many are), so she approached a ward member about the meaning of the passage, only to be told that she was cursed. Let's look at the footnote:

2 Nephi 5:21: "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 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."

Follow new footnote “d” to 2 Nephi 30:6 to get an idea of what is meant by “skin”:

2 Nephi 30:6: "And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."

Follow footnote “b” to the bottom of the page. Scales—TG Darkness, Spiritual, TG Spiritual Blindness.

As you follow all footnotes in the Book for Mormon relating to skin, mark, curse, dark, darkness, black, blackness, white, delightsome, and filthy, they all tie back into 2 Nephi 5:21, 2 Nephi 30:6, and Jacob 3:8. So what the Brethren gave us in the 1981 scripture updating, after receiving a flood of intelligence with the 1978 revelation, is quite significant. However, we have to be aware of these changes in order to help others.

 

http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/howtoreach.html

 

Everything is subject to interpretation- that is the point I am making.