Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[David T]

 

But you are indeed making use of non doctrinal sources to influence your personal interpretation of the BoM:

 

 

As I said in the post, I was inspired by their example of a willingness to closely read the text, and to be willing to re-think prior assumptions. In other words, to do what President Uchtdorf - in his doctrinal message - suggested we do.

 

I don't cite those books as reasons for my conclusions - I cite them as inspiration for being willing to think about the question.

Edited December 11, 2013 by David T

[BCSpace]

As I said in the post, I was inspired by their example of a willingness to closely read the text, and to be willing to re-think prior assumptions. In other words, to do what President Uchtdorf - in his doctrinal message - suggested we do.

 

And as I have said, I have done that and taken what the Church has said at face value and come to a much different and more doctrinally accurate conclusion than you have.

[David T]

And as I have said, I have done that and taken what the Church has said at face value and come to a much different and more doctrinally accurate conclusion than you have.

 

So you affirm that it is your belief that it is doctrinal that there truly were times where black skin is used by God as an authentic sign of divine disfavor or curse?

Edited December 11, 2013 by David T

[BCSpace]

So you affirm that it is your belief that it is doctrinal that there truly were times where black skin is used by God as a true sign of divine disfavor or curse?

 

I affirm that it is scripture and that the doctrine currently ties it all together.  The context of the recent topic addition on "the past" is the modern priesthood ban.  It's the only way so far to reconcile all that is and has been published.

 

But keep trying.  I think progress is being made on my part though perhaps not in the direction you would like to see,

Edited December 11, 2013 by BCSpace

[David T]

I affirm that it is scripture.

Do you affirm that it is your belief that it is current doctrine that there truly were times where black skin is used by God as an authentic sign of divine disfavor or curse?

Edited December 11, 2013 by David T

[Stone holm]

Here is the problem I see with this reasoning, which is in essence saying that the racism is a result of the cultural milieu of the day, be it the last one hundred and fifty or so years of the modern day church, or the thousand year history of the Book of Mormon, or the Bible. God has consistently revealed his will, through His prophets, throughout these times. In all of these ages he has asked his people to follow Him and obey His commandments, regardless of how difficult and socially unacceptable those commandments were/are. Whether it be incredible strict dietary laws, or abandoning their families, homeland and birthrights to travel thousands of miles to live in unknown lands, or practice polygamy in a remote desert, God has not hesitated to ask his followers to abandon all, even their entire lives as they know it, to follow him. Why has He consistently avoided (for lack of a better word) demanding that his followers treat their fellow man whose skin is a different color, equally?

 

It is a fundamental aspect of Christianity that we love one another equally, regardless of who we are. I find it hard to believe that a God who could compel his chosen people to do all those other things, could not also teach them, on a consistent basis, that that skin color does not matter. I think the cultural excuse for racism raises some really difficult questions about how or if prophets really communicate with God because I do not believe God is a racist nor do I believe he would tolerate such practices for so long by even his chosen ones.

 

I don't believe in issuing CFR's, but if I did, I would challenge at what point the idea that we love one another equally came to the forefront.  It clearly was not at the forefront of Judaism at the time of Christ and there have been plenty of times during the history of Christianity during which the concept got lost somewhere out in the bushes.  So to say that "love one another" has been consistent in Christianity is basically nonsense.  Both sides of the Civil War thought that Christ was on their side.

[BCSpace]

Do you affirm that it is your belief that it is current doctrine that there truly were times where black skin is used by God as an authentic sign of divine disfavor or curse?

 

I edited my post before you post this.  Sorry about that.  See above.

[BCSpace]

I would challenge at what point the idea that we love one another equally came to the forefront.  It clearly was not at the forefront of Judaism at the time of Christ and there have been plenty of times during the history of Christianity during which the concept got lost somewhere out in the bushes.

 

This reminds me that BY made use of 2 Nephi 26:33 on several occasions as evidenced in the JoD.  While the JoD itself is not doctrinal, I think this shows that BY likely did not forget this verse when he was inspired, as the Church continues to uphold, to institute the ban.

[David T]

 It's the only way so far to reconcile all that is and has been published.

I thought for you, there was no need to reconcile the most recent official positions/publications with past publications? Doesn't the latest trump former publications?

[jkwilliams]

I thought for you, there was no need to reconcile the most recent official positions/publications with past publications? Doesn't the latest trump former publications?

 

Elsewhere, bcspace has corrected the official position, so maybe not.

[Stone holm]

Elsewhere, bcspace has corrected the official position, so maybe not.

 

Interesting most Christians prefer the sayings of Prophets who have been the longest in the grave...we prefer them alive and wiggling so long as they run everything through Correlation before they open their mouth.

[BCSpace]

I thought for you, there was no need to reconcile the most recent official positions/publications with past publications? Doesn't the latest trump former publications?

 

It does.  But in the case of the curriculum, a work published in say, 2001, is still in the latest group if it's still being used.  Hence something has to give or be modified or corrected if a conflict is to be removed.

 

In this particular case, we don't have any specific statement redefining or disavowing the BoM verses.  The most we have is context and the context is modern, not ancient.

[Stone holm]

It does.  But in the case of the curriculum, a work published in say, 2001, is still in the latest group if it's still being used.  Hence something has to give or be modified or corrected if a conflict is to be removed.

 

In this particular case, we don't have any specific statement redefining or disavowing the BoM verses.  The most we have is context and the context is modern, not ancient.

 

Why on Earth would they disavow the B of M verses?  If they started doing that, huge slices of the OT would have to be disavowed, and what about when Paul goes off the rails with his personal opinions in the NT?

[BCSpace]

Elsewhere, bcspace has corrected the official position, so maybe not.

 

I have merely proposed a correction.  If not that, further explanation.  If not that, all we have is context and taking the Church's words at face value.  it is the latter that I seek wisdom on in the creation of this thread.

Edited December 11, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Why on Earth would they disavow the B of M verses?  If they started doing that, huge slices of the OT would have to be disavowed, and what about when Paul goes off the rails with his personal opinions in the NT?

 

Indeed. I don't think that would happen and I can't think of any reason why they would. 

[Stone holm]

Indeed. I don't think that would happen and I can't think of any reason why they would. 

 

BCSpace, I am in agreement.  I think we can expect that people will start spinning and ascribing rather fanciful metaphoric meanings to those verses -- a practice which I personally abhor -- better practice is just admit that they were from the cultural racism of the time and move on.  I hate it when people spin nonsense from such stuff.

[David T]

Which is what I did. Take material at face value for those presenting and writing the texys. It does appear that in the Book of Mormon, it started out with King Nephi as a literal belief, and merged, by at least Mormons time, into a combination of literal and metaphorical to make sense of their present reality, and to suppport previous prophetic prescedence.

Again, very much like we did in the modern Church. For our day indeed.

[CA Steve]

I don't believe in issuing CFR's, but if I did, I would challenge at what point the idea that we love one another equally came to the forefront.  It clearly was not at the forefront of Judaism at the time of Christ and there have been plenty of times during the history of Christianity during which the concept got lost somewhere out in the bushes.  So to say that "love one another" has been consistent in Christianity is basically nonsense.  Both sides of the Civil War thought that Christ was on their side.

Feel free to read my post without "equally". We are still left trying to explain why God and his prophets were not communicating on such an important issue over so long a period of time involving a variety of different prophets.

 

I have to wonder if a cultural environment can be blamed for enforcing misconceptions about equality and faulty communications between God and His prophets, can it also be blamed for rejecting something like polygamy?

Edited December 12, 2013 by CA Steve

[Stone holm]

Feel free to read my post without "equally". We are still left trying to explain why God and his prophets were not communicating on such an important issue over so long a period of time involving a variety of different prophets.

 

I have to wonder if a cultural environment can be blamed for enforcing misconceptions about equality and faulty communications between God and His prophets, can it also be blamed for rejecting something like polygamy?

I think possibly so, except in that case The Lord said okay these are going to be the catastrophic consequences that the culture is going to impose on you if you continue to live this law, and I don't need it right now to fulfill my plans, so you have leave to withdraw it. The Church to my knowledge has never repudiated the practice as it was always only for times when The Lord needed it. There may come a time before the end when He will need it again.

[mfbukowski]

Who knows but a thousand years from now our Scriptures will relegated to the realm of Beowulf. I certainly hope not. However I do believe that all of our Scriptures are the word of God as far as they are translated correctly.

So God does not speak in parables?  Beowulf could not possibly be viewed as scripture?  What of the parables in the NT?  Are you sure they are "false"?

[mfbukowski]

There aren't any racist passages.  None of the ones referred to teaches that disadvantages or disfavor stem from skin color.

 

My thinking now is settling on one of context. For example, it's obvious that anthropologically 'black skin' relative to the priesthood ban is quite different from 'black skin' relative to the the peoples indigenous to this Hemisphere.

By Jove he's got it! 

[mfbukowski]

Aristotle taught that you could reconcile just about any two statements by drawing a distinction.

 

I think he is happy that we agree.

[BCSpace]

By Jove he's got it! 

 

Seems like I've had it for a number of years.  It's been an integral part of the explanation of doctrine since probably before you ever put your hand to the apologetic wheel.

Edited December 12, 2013 by BCSpace

[Rivers]

I'm glad you asked!

Adjusting the Narrative: Part 2a - Nephi and the Skin of Blackness - http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-2anephi-skin-blackness/

Adjusting the Narrative: Part 2b - Disavowed Theories - http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-2b-entract-addendum/

And you can follow the links for the rest of the series. More is coming.

I read these posts back when they were first put online. Very interesting.

[Rivers]

.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Rivers