Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[jkwilliams]

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.

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

 

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

 

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

 

I can't remember if you joined the church before or after 1978. I remember being greatly relieved when we as a church finally jettisoned the "mark of Cain" stuff that had been taught for so long. The connection between righteousness and skin color is more explicit in the Book of Mormon, but maybe with time that can go away as well.

[mfbukowski]

I can't remember if you joined the church before or after 1978.

I would not have joined if the ban had been in place.

[Stone holm]

To which argument are you referring?

The argument that the passages in the B of M do not actually refer to skin pigment.

[BCSpace]

The argument that the passages in the B of M do not actually refer to skin pigment.

 

It's certainly not an argument I'm making.

[teddyaware]

Many years ago, while engaged in lively discussion on the subject of religion, an acquaintance of mine opined that I "was one of those weird point guys." What he meant by that is he observed I had a

peculiar ability to see and understand things, sometimes very plain and obvious things, that for some

strange reason would likely never dawn upon the minds of most people. This peculiar talent of mine is

about to come to the fore on this post. Please understand that the observations I'm about to make do

not necessarily imply anything in particular about my beliefs of the subject of this thread; rather,

consider these observations as mere points of interest to springboard discussion.

As all Latter-day Saints know, after the final judgment, all God's children who obtained a physical

body on this earth will be resurrected into either one of three kingdoms of glory or into a kingdom of no glory (for our purposes, let us consider the word "glory" as referring to the blessed light of God

that infuses men's souls in the process of eternal progression).

"13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all

things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of

eternity, who is in the midst of all things.) (D&C 88)

Those who obtain the highest degree of glory will receive bodies filled with a celestial degree of

glory -- bodies infused with a fullness of the light of God and typified by the brightness of the sun

at noonday. We are told that God and Christ, who have glorified celestial bodies, are so filled with

glorious divine light that attempting to describe the degree of brightness they possess defies all

human attempts at description.

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God,

the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical. (D&C 76)

Those who do not obtain a celestial glory, but who will stand next in order of degree of infusion of

light to those who obtain the celestial glory, will inherit a terrestrial glory. The brightness of the

countenances of these glorified bodies is typified by the brightness of the moon -- not nearly as

bright as the sun.

"78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon

differs from the sun." (D&C 76)

Those who do not obtain a terrestrial glory, but who will stand next in degree of infusion of light to those who obtain the terrestrial glory, will inherit a telestial glory. The brightness of the

countenances of these bodies so glorified is typified by the brightness of the stars -- not nearly as

bright as the moon.

"98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star

differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;" (D&C 88)

Those who are resurrected but receive bodies without any infusion of divine light whatsoever are the

sons of perdition. For these, there is no illumination of their bodies by the light of God; rather,

they are said to appear as beings of darkness, devoid of any appearance of brightness.

"13 And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?

(Moses 1)

In light of the above principle that teaches greater and greater degrees of brightness enlighten the

countenances of men as they draw closer and closer to God, one can't help but wonder about the

implications of the following verses from the Book of Mormon?

"20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they (i.e. the Lamanites) will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

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 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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they

shall repent of their iniquities." (2 Nephi 5)

Since the subject of the original post of this thread draws our attention only to the cursing God

placed upon the Lamanites, I would greatly appreciate it if any responses to this particular post of

mine deal only with content on this subject as found in the text of the Book of Mormon. I'm not

interested in broadening the subject beyond the Book of Mormon's treatment of the cursing placed

specifically on the Lamanites. If others do try to broaden the subject beyond the scope of the subject of the cursing of the Lamanites, as found in the Book of Mormon, I will not respond.

Edited December 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

Correct would not know why he would...but wow the history he gave us!

[Senator]

In light of the above principle that teaches greater and greater degrees of brightness enlighten the

countenances of men as they draw closer and closer to God, one can't help but wonder about the

implications of the following verses from the Book of Mormon?

 

 

What implications are you wondering about?

[thesometimesaint]

I can't remember if you joined the church before or after 1978. I remember being greatly relieved when we as a church finally jettisoned the "mark of Cain" stuff that had been taught for so long. The connection between righteousness and skin color is more explicit in the Book of Mormon, but maybe with time that can go away as well.

 

I joined 1971. It was a common belief that the Lamanites were dark skinned. A close reading of the BoM doesn't render it that way.

[teddyaware]

What implications are you wondering about?

The thought that in some rare instances, as recorded in the scriptures, God makes it

possible to generally identify those who are and are not living in harmony with Him by outward appearance or countenance. For instance, Moses saw the brilliant glory of God, who's appearance in brightness and glory is far

above the brilliance of the sun. But when Moses saw the devil he was able to discern he was unworthy of worship because his appearance was not accompanied by a similar manifestation of the celestial

brilliance and glory of God's appearance. Therefore, the instance in the Book of Mormon of the Lord

giving a skin of blackness to the rebellious Lamanites seems likely to be a type or earthly

manifestation of the differing degrees of infusions of light and glory depending on faithfulness.

Edited December 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[Senator]

The thought that in some rare instances, as recorded in the scriptures, God makes it

possible to generally identify those who are and are not living in harmony with God by outward appearance or countenance. For instance, Moses saw the brilliant glory of God, who's appearance in brightness and glory is far

above the brilliance of the sun. But when Moses saw the devil he was able to discern he was unworthy of worship because his appearance was not accompanied by a similar manifestation of the celestial

brilliance and glory of God's appearance. Therefore, the instance in the Book of Mormon of the Lord

giving a skin of blackness to the rebellious Lamanites seems likely to be a type or earthly

manifestation of the differing degrees of infusions of light and glory depending on faithfulness.

Well, if that is the case, then IMHO, the author of the BoM text employed an awkward and unnecessary metaphor to illustrate spiritual radiance. Countenance is after all a used word in the BofM. Its use in this instance would have been far more relatable.  

[CV75]

I would not have joined if the ban had been in place.

While I don't disagree with your making membership conditional on this point, I joined in 1975 despite it due to an overriding witness of other things.

[teddyaware]

Well, if that is the case, then IMHO, the author of the BoM text employed an awkward and unnecessary metaphor to illustrate spiritual radiance. Countenance is after all a used word in the BofM. Its use in this instance would have been far more relatable.

I said the curse upon the Lamanites was likely a earthly "type" of the principle of spiritual radiance.

[mfbukowski]

While I don't disagree with your making membership conditional on this point, I joined in 1975 despite it due to an overriding witness of other things.

It would have been a very tough call for me I think.  Thanks heavens I didn't even know what a Mormon was until 1979, and I thought- "Ok, they were racist like everyone else in the old days, but they got over it".

 

It gave me no more trouble than becoming a Baptist would have.  But if it was an on-going thing, I am not sure how I would have reacted.  But my witness was pretty strong- it would have been a tough call.

[Stone holm]

It would have been a very tough call for me I think.  Thanks heavens I didn't even know what a Mormon was until 1979, and I thought- "Ok, they were racist like everyone else in the old days, but they got over it".

 

It gave me no more trouble than becoming a Baptist would have.  But if it was an on-going thing, I am not sure how I would have reacted.  But my witness was pretty strong- it would have been a tough call.

 

Joined two years before it was lifted.  It was an incredibly awkward doctrine.  I hometaught almost from the outset with the local 70's quorum, we taught part member families.  Imagine if you will teaching a  white Sister who was married to an African-American with whom she had two sons -- and try imagining how to address her questions about why they could not be sealed as a family, and why her sons would not hold the Priesthood like all the other boys in the Ward.  Yeah, that was definitely not fun.

[BCSpace]

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?

 

Dead serious.  We care because, for example and in this particular case, the Church is showing you what compares, what is relevant, or what expands on the verse so footnoted.

 

 

Are all the footnotes themselves scripture???

 

No, they are doctrine which as we know, is more important than scripture.  Even other apologists who disagree with my pov tacitly agree with this particular because they are proposing a change in how we view the BoM verses I refer to in the OP.  In other words, the interpretation of a verse is more important than the verse itself.

 

 

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

 

Neither does 2 Nephi 26:33, the verse referred to in the footnote.  Are you telling me then, that 2 Nephi 26:33 is not referring skin color?  Do you disagree with LDS doctrine that it is indeed referring to skin color?  Let's put up the verse so everyone can see it:

 

33  For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

 

The above verse doesn't mention 'skin' at all so by mfbukowski's logic it must not refer to skin color.  There goes the Church's PR campaign and it looks like they will have to rewrite the new topical addition Race and the Priesthood as well; specifically, a deletion in <gasp!> a footnote which explains and justifies the doctrine.

 

 

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

 

And the Church has an extant interpretation - that is the point I am making.

Edited December 10, 2013 by BCSpace

[Stone holm]

I joined 1971. It was a common belief that the Lamanites were dark skinned. A close reading of the BoM doesn't render it that way.

Common belief...no it was a darn near universal belief...all of this other stuff about the spirit and radiance is newly conceived rationalization. We do the B of M no credit by trying to whitewash awkward passages. In some ways it makes it more authentic, because it is obvious that tribal and racial hatred was ubiquitous in the B of M, just as it was in the cultures from whence those people came.

[mfbukowski]

Dead serious.  We care because, for example and in this particular case, the Church is showing you what compares, what is relevant, or what expands on the verse so footnoted.

 

 

No, they are doctrine which as we know, is more important than scripture.  Even other apologists who disagree with my pov tacitly agree with this particular because they are proposing a change in how we view the BoM verses I refer to in the OP.  In other words, the interpretation of a verse is more important than the verse itself.

 

 

Neither does 2 Nephi 26:33, the verse referred to in the footnote.  Are you telling me then, that 2 Nephi 26:33 is not referring skin color?  Do you disagree with LDS doctrine that it is indeed referring to skin color?  Let's put up the verse so everyone can see it:

 

 

The above verse doesn't mention 'skin' at all so by mfbukowski's logic it must not refer to skin color.  There goes the Church's PR campaign and it looks like they will have to rewrite the new topical addition Race and the Priesthood as well; specifically, a deletion in <gasp!> a footnote which explains and justifies the doctrine.

 

 

And the Church has an extant interpretation - that is the point I am making.

We disagree on what constitutes "doctrine".  There is another thread running on this topic in which this has been discussed at length and I don't feel like re-doing it here.

 

I have no problem with statements made by church leaders to be contradictory by implication or directly contradictory. I think these contradictions bother you significantly, considering the mental gymnastics you perform to reconcile them.  I have no problem with that approach- but I regard church beliefs as open and inherently ambiguous and I actually find that a positive thing.  It indicates growth and indeed disagreement and that we are all learning line up on line.  In fact I find it quite comforting that the leaders sometimes have, and do still, disagree.

 

I think that clearly the new statement on race repudiates earlier "doctrine" and that is fine with me, but I suspect clearly a problem for you.

 

The quotes I made, if you actually read what I posted, show that there are multiple ways of interpreting anything.  Yours is not the only interpretation.  As far as I am concerned there is no "correct" interpretation, though clearly some are more convincing and logical than others.

 

The fact that one verse refers to skin color, does not mean that the word "black" always refers to skin color.  There are all kinds of black things in this world, it is an adjective which modifies any noun you like.  Sometimes it modifies "skin" and sometimes it might modify "heart" as when someone has a "black heart". 

 

The crucial point though is that what it IS talking about is just as ambiguous as what "doctrine" is, your personal beliefs notwithstanding.

 

Honestly BC, ambiguity about these issues is not a bad thing.  The church is still true and the only way we can know that is not through anybody's definition of the word "doctrine" but by the spirit. 

 

Words are words and their use is limited in these matters. 

 

We are talking about God here and I really think all the nuances of what there is to know about him cannot be put into words.  I suppose I could give a proof text for that as well as you could if you wanted.

[thesometimesaint]

Common belief...no it was a darn near universal belief...all of this other stuff about the spirit and radiance is newly conceived rationalization. We do the B of M no credit by trying to whitewash awkward passages. In some ways it makes it more authentic, because it is obvious that tribal and racial hatred was ubiquitous in the B of M, just as it was in the cultures from whence those people came.

 

It wasn't darn near universal beliefs with my group. But it was common enough that our Institute instructor made reference to it.

 

I make no defense of the BoM where it is clearly racist. What I am saying is that a close reading shows that at various times and locals it was impossible to tell whom was Lamanite, and whom was Nephite, or any other "ite" on the basis of physical skin color.

[jkwilliams]

I make no defense of the BoM where it is clearly racist. What I am saying is that a close reading shows that at various times and locals it was impossible to tell whom was Lamanite, and whom was Nephite, or any other "ite" on the basis of physical skin color.

 

Yep. According to the text, there was a lot of intermarriage, and the term "Lamanite" in many places seems to refer to righteousness or adherence to the gospel. Even then, sometimes the Lamanites are described as being more righteous than the Nephites.

[Stone holm]

Yep. According to the text, there was a lot of intermarriage, and the term "Lamanite" in many places seems to refer to righteousness or adherence to the gospel. Even then, sometimes the Lamanites are described as being more righteous than the Nephites.

 

And yet we hear talk of the Lamanites becoming apparently paler during those times, kind of like skin color is some kind of righteousness barometer.

[David T]

And yet we hear talk of the Lamanites becoming apparently paler during those times, kind of like skin color is some kind of righteousness barometer.

 

If Nephi was mistaken, but Mormon believed him, I'm sure when writing a faith-promoting history of events that occured before he was born, I'm not surprised Mormon would add in that detail.

Edited December 11, 2013 by David T

[jkwilliams]

And yet we hear talk of the Lamanites becoming apparently paler during those times, kind of like skin color is some kind of righteousness barometer.

 

That is indeed what the Book of Mormon says. According to FAIR, this is metaphorical, but a metaphorical reading is difficult for me to reconcile with certain parts of the Nephite narrative.

[thesometimesaint]

And yet we hear talk of the Lamanites becoming apparently paler during those times, kind of like skin color is some kind of righteousness barometer.

 

Skin color is highly variable determined by the amount of melanin in the skin. While both my parents were Caucasian my skin is a dark as my mothers, which is darker than my fathers and I'm the darkest of the kids. My sister is very fair skinned(blue eyes, and naturally blond hair) she gets seriously sun burned. While I just get a nice tan.  I'm not convinced that I'm any more righteous than they are.

[CA Steve]

That is indeed what the Book of Mormon says. According to FAIR, this is metaphorical, but a metaphorical reading is difficult for me to reconcile with certain parts of the Nephite narrative.

'Metaphorical' always seems to mean a part of the narrative whose clear interpretation is no longer acceptable.

[Rivers]

Skin color is highly variable determined by the amount of melanin in the skin. While both my parents were Caucasian my skin is a dark as my mothers, which is darker than my fathers and I'm the darkest of the kids. My sister is very fair skinned(blue eyes, and naturally blond hair) she gets seriously sun burned. While I just get a nice tan.  I'm not convinced that I'm any more righteous than they are.

I get seriously burned too.  Its no fun at all.