Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[Stone holm]

I get it now, thanks.

 

We have long threads about the ambiguity of doctrine, and no one but you seems to have a clear definition and know perfectly what is and is not doctrine, or what happens when "doctrines" conflict.

 

I am glad you are so comfortable with your definition, but just know that many others are not.

 

Having a black and white mental picture of the world is a very comfortable feeling, colors and shadings are so vexatious.

[mfbukowski]

On another thread which is now closed mormonewbie criticizes me for not noticing that someone was "black".  I guess we are still too defensive about these matters to even think this is possible.

 

I typically do not look at how guys look- I have consciously tried to avoid judging people by their appearance. Of course I noticed he had curly hair, of course I noticed how he looked- I just never thought of him as a "black guy".

 

I will try to repent of that from now on and make sure I am conscious of everyone's race.  It is the American thing to do, I suppose.

 

Good thing it is not in the rest of the world.

[mfbukowski]

Why was the thread on repercussions closed?

One of the Great Mysteries of the universe, along with many others.

[mfbukowski]

Having a black and white mental picture of the world is a very comfortable feeling, colors and shadings are so vexatious.

My entire world is in full color and I love not knowing what color something is because it is between two which are well-named and defined.  I don't see anymore need to define color than I do to define doctrine.  I think it spoils the world's richness to have to put everything in little boxes.

 

That's why poetry was invented- to save the color and put it in words.

Edited December 17, 2013 by mfbukowski

[DBMormon]

One of the Great Mysteries of the universe, along with many others.

It is almost like when someone is onto something really good that doesn't have a good solution, we just quietly close down the thread with no explanation.  Well due to that I have made a podcast episode discussing  the same material.  

Edited December 17, 2013 by DBMormon

[mfbukowski]

It is almost like when someone is onto something really good that doesn't have a good solution, we just quietly close down the thread with no explanation.  Well due to that I have made a podcast episode discussing  the same material.  

Good for you.

 

But make sure there are no repercussions.   

 

I mean it's not like we can talk about these things for the whole world to see or anything. 

[strappinglad]

Maybe the definition of " doctrine " is somewhat like the definition of " black " . Even blacks have been known to discuss the " blackness" of an individual. As a favorite comedian of mine has said ( Russel Peters) , " Before long, everyone will be Beige" . I can hope that doesn't happen to Doctrine.

[Stone holm]

Maybe the definition of " doctrine " is somewhat like the definition of " black " . Even blacks have been known to discuss the " blackness" of an individual. As a favorite comedian of mine has said ( Russel Peters) , " Before long, everyone will be Beige" . I can hope that doesn't happen to Doctrine.

Not sure I would drink beige milk, but am mildly lactose intolerant anyway.

[Sevenbak]

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

There are ancient texts that describe him, in similar ways as did Joseph Smith, being both grey and blue, and hair lighter than the norm for the region.  I won't spam it all, but here's a couple links to some that have been compiled.  You are correct, Josephus didn't describe his eye color specifically, but others did.  Here's a few...

 

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

http://s-studies.0catch.com/DocRob/descrip.htm

 

And just some highlights for consideration...

 

The Description of Publius Lentullus  "His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick-"

 

Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar "His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions!"

 

"The Archko Volume" which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus. 'If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue,...

 

Publius Lentrelus, a resident of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Caesar.  "his hair of a color that can hardly be matched, falling into graceful curls, waving about and very agreeable crouching upon his shoulders, parted on the crown of the head, running as a stream to the front after fashion of the Nazarites. His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a lovely red; his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard, and of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin and parted in the middle like a fork; his eyes bright blue, clear and serene.

 

 

Again, the bottom line for me is that when we try to lump the physical appearance of Christ, into perceived assumptions, without giving credence to the literal DNA of God the Father, or statements by modern witnesses, it poses a big problem for me.

[Sevenbak]

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.

I guess one could read it that way, but as has been pointed out, the writers of the BoM were pretty blunt in their descriptions and views about race and skin color, so when I read Nephi say Mary was white and fair, that means the same to me as when I also hear him say the nephites were white and delightsome.  (yes, 1 reference still has that wording…)  

 

It's also relevant to point out that no one is referring to these people as "northern european"… That's a modern association.   The Jews are scattered and mixed among all nations and countries, and there is no proof that all of Israel is dark complexion.  I don't know about you, but I know a lot of Jewish people that are very fair in completion.

 

There is also some biblical references that could be argued for King David and Esau (and possibly Adam) as having red completion or hair.  This is arguable, for sure, but the genes had to come from someplace, same as dark complexions...

[Calm]

 the writers of the BoM were pretty blunt in their descriptions and views about race and skin color

 

Only if you interpret the verses that way to begin with....

[Sevenbak]

Interpreting them any other way is applying modern political correctness sensibilities to the text, at least it is for me. I just don't see how a different, more PC interpretation of this verbiage could be understood:

 

 

 

wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them.

 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be^aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that ^amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

[juliann]

There are ancient texts that describe him, in similar ways as did Joseph Smith, being both grey and blue, and hair lighter than the norm for the region.  I won't spam it all, but here's a couple links to some that have been compiled.  You are correct, Josephus didn't describe his eye color specifically, but others did.  Here's a few...

 

Anything claiming to be a contemporary description of Jesus would not be authentic.  Google them.  These are obviously later descriptions coming from Christians.   As for God having any particular look, it is no more likely to be caucasian than anything else.

 

As for describing anyone white and fair, people aren't "white", anymore than they are "black".  That is a modern construction.  Look through the very un-PC Bible to see how many times people were described by color.  You will find Job's

skin called "black".  Nobody thinks he was African.  It indicated a time of great deprivation, sickness or stress...or wickedness.   That, along with allowing that there was "racism" in the BOM...the prejudice is pretty clear from the relegating Lamanites to little more than savages.  But that is how the ancients rolled when talking about enemies. 

[Stone holm]

Interpreting them any other way is applying modern political correctness sensibilities to the text, at least it is for me. I just don't see how a different, more PC interpretation of this verbiage could be understood:

 

 

 

wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them.

 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be^aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that ^amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

I agree the other interpretations strike me as feeble wishful thinking.

[Sevenbak]

Anything claiming to be a contemporary description of Jesus would not be authentic.  Google them.  These are obviously later descriptions coming from Christians.   As for God having any particular look, it is no more likely to be caucasian than anything else.

 

As for describing anyone white and fair, people aren't "white", anymore than they are "black".  That is a modern construction.  Look through the very un-PC Bible to see how many times people were described by color.  You will find Job's

skin called "black".  Nobody thinks he was African.  It indicated a time of great deprivation, sickness or stress...or wickedness.   That, along with allowing that there was "racism" in the BOM...the prejudice is pretty clear from the relegating Lamanites to little more than savages.  But that is how the ancients rolled when talking about enemies. 

They are as close as we have.  And the legal ones from the court, and Pontius Pilot's letter are contemporaries too, not from later Christians.

 

Joseph Smith also had contemporaries, who also saw the Savior, and described him the same way Joseph did.  Here's a nice one, that was related in General Conference a few years back.  This one is from John Murdock.  He's the father of the twins that Joseph and Emma adopted.

 

 

“During the winter that I boarded with Brother Joseph … we had a number of prayer meetings, in the Prophet’s chamber. … In one of those meetings the Prophet told us, ‘If we would humble ourselves before God, and exercise strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord.’ And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in a most majestic form; His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white: Whiter than any garment I have ever before seen. His countenance was most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never before felt to that degree.” (John Murdock, An Abridged Record of the Life of John Murdock, p. 26.)

[Sevenbak]

I agree the other interpretations strike me as feeble wishful thinking.

Amen.

 

If I may borrow a quote by Elder Oaks… "I speak against the powerful tide of what is called political correctness."

[David T]

There are ancient texts that describe him, in similar ways as did Joseph Smith, being both grey and blue, and hair lighter than the norm for the region.  I won't spam it all, but here's a couple links to some that have been compiled.  You are correct, Josephus didn't describe his eye color specifically, but others did.  Here's a few...

 

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

http://s-studies.0catch.com/DocRob/descrip.htm

 

And just some highlights for consideration...

 

The Description of Publius Lentullus  "His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick-"

 

Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar "His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions!"

 

"The Archko Volume" which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus. 'If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue,...

 

Publius Lentrelus, a resident of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Caesar.  "his hair of a color that can hardly be matched, falling into graceful curls, waving about and very agreeable crouching upon his shoulders, parted on the crown of the head, running as a stream to the front after fashion of the Nazarites. His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a lovely red; his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard, and of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin and parted in the middle like a fork; his eyes bright blue, clear and serene.

 

 

Again, the bottom line for me is that when we try to lump the physical appearance of Christ, into perceived assumptions, without giving credence to the literal DNA of God the Father, or statements by modern witnesses, it poses a big problem for me.

 

The Archko volume is a bona fide fake.

The Letter of Lentulus (you have it listed as lentrelus, and listed twice) is not authentic.

The Pilate letter is clearly understood as being a spurious late pseudepigrapha.

 

Using these as evidences for Jesus' appearance is like going to a Hoffman forgery for proof of Joseph's visions of a Salamander.

 

In other words... you've been had.

Edited December 19, 2013 by David T

[Sevenbak]

Had, Shmad.

 

Wiki is not the fountain of truth, and is also used to discredit the church and teachings of the gospel in a myriad of ways.  

 

According to the D&C, the apocrypha are mostly translated correctly and there can be truths had therein.  What they do is support truth, as stated by current prophets.

 

And further, if the descriptive account of Lentulus is good enough for President McKay to read to the 12 in the temple, and then for S.W. Kimball to read to the entire Church at General Conference, then I say I'm in good company, and so be it.

 

As E. Kimball so aptly put it after reading the account over the pulpit… "Whether authentic or not I do not know, but it may stir our imaginations."

 

I say Amen!

Edited December 19, 2013 by Sevenbak

[BCSpace]

I am always reluctant to throw BY under the bus, as is the current trend. However, despite whatever BY may have felt with regards to his explanation, the Church has disavowed his explanation. If long years of reading the Scriptures always led to correct explanations, I rather doubt that Christianity as a whole would be so diverse as it is.

 

The question can be asked "What does the Church means by disavowal?"  Depending on which definition one selects, it could be total disagreement or a simple distancing.  The latter seems more likely as the Church often says it "does not know" on this issue.

[BCSpace]

What scripture would that be?  Do you mean the BoM, Book of Abraham, or the Bible? Which one inspired BY?  Or all?  Or 2 out of 3, which would be my guess.  

 

He didn't specify.

[BCSpace]

I get it now, thanks.

 

We have long threads about the ambiguity of doctrine, and no one but you seems to have a clear definition and know perfectly what is and is not doctrine, or what happens when "doctrines" conflict.

 

I am glad you are so comfortable with your definition, but just know that many others are not.

 

It's not my definition.  It's the Church's. Trust the Church to which you belong.

[mfbukowski]

It's not my definition.  It's the Church's. Trust the Church to which you belong.

Well of course it is that very statement which is being disputed, isn't it.  Not everyone agrees with you.

 

I think it's NOT the "Church's definition".   So who is right?

[wtrdog]

Well I just learned in a hard way how some of the features of this forum work.  Don't click the arrow, it will blow how the long reply you spent forever typing.  The short version.

 

1) Previous commenter expressed his opinion that the dark-skinned curse was a natural thing, the result of breeding with the darker-skinned locals, resulting in a change in skin tone over a generation.  I agree.  Not aware of any scripture that suggests otherwise, or that dark skin in of itself is indicative of some kind of curse or innate unrighteousness.  However I do understand how people who existed in cultures far removed from our own could have such a false impression.

 

2) All the comments about Christ not being white.  I disagree.  There's the picture of the computer-generated image of what Christ could have looked like.  Looks white to me.  I'm considered white and my complexion isn't all that different.  Modern Arabs are considered Caucasian.  Certainly it's reasonable for someone in Nehpi's day to consider himself as "white" when compared to a much darker indigenous person encountered in the Americas.  

 

3) I also agree with the guy that pointed out that Christ is the only begotten of the Father.  So in truth he was only half Palestinian.  For all we know God the Father has Irish-like pale-skinned DNA in his blood.  Also as far as the shape shifting comments go, I absolutely believe God is a master geneticist capable of changing his body if and when it suits him.  I'm sure he has the technology for example where he could pop a pill and change his hair or skin color.  Or perhaps even change it at will through some type of spiritual control over the code (DNA) which defines the parameters for his body.  I'm not aware of any evidence that he's appeared in different form to different people, but don't see why he couldn't.

 

4) The real interesting thing for me about all this is the tacit statement that Brigham Young, among others, were utterly uninspired in the church policies they implemented, as well as their public speculation, on matters of race.  Doesn't mean they weren't inspired in other areas, but clearly they weren't as far as these were concerned.  There is a culture in the church that whatever the prophet says is doctrine.  I've never believed this myself, but it's a permeating attitude in LDS culture, and one which the leadership is frankly responsible for.  What I'm curious about is whether the leadership is now finally taking steps to do away with these myths.  As far as I can tell the prophet of the church hasn't received an official revelation, or anything which should be regarded as doctrine, since 1978.  Perhaps the Proclamation?  Not even sure if it fits in that category.  For a treatise on doctrine see 2 Nephi 32 and 3 Nephi 11.  

 

A more frank discussion needs to be had on what should be considered "doctrine" and official "revelation".  I see it as a huge problem.  The existing attitude ultimately sets people up for failure.  It creates a spiritual dependence on the leadership which should not exist, which goes against the atonement.  Christ is the atoner, not Monson, not Packer, not McConkie, not Brigham Young, nor any other moral man.  I also think it sets the leadership up for failure as well, as they seem to adopt an attitude of disregarding members who are "below" them in the priesthood hierarchy.  And I see no clearer an example of this than the current state of church finances and debacles like that $5 billion dollar mall.  I think it's great to be responsible with tithing funds.  No issue with the church investing that money into worthwhile projects.  But things are clearly out of control and we've lost our way to an extent.  It's appropriate for leadership to be somewhat accountable to the members.  As in times of old, why can't a member outside the priesthood hierarchy call a leader to repent?  How many members expressed disagreement with the church's ban on blacks in the priesthood?  The ban itself doesn't bother me.  In the culture that BY existed, I frankly can understand it, even perhaps agree with his decision to a certain extent.  But what I absolutely don't understand is how this ban persisted until 1978!!!!!  Decades after the civil rights movement.  I'm sorry, but our history on his issue is nothing short of embarrassing.  It took the prophets until 1978 to receive the revelation that blacks aren't inferior to whites?  Or none of them bothered to inquire about the matter until then?  And then it took until 2013 for them to "disavow" the theories advanced by all the previous prophets and leaders on the issue?  If this is true, it's a pretty fantastic claim that people should be placing their spiritual livelihood on the prophet and apostles.  Forgive me, but I think I'll rely on my own spirituality and my own personal revelation instead.  I love Monson and many of the apostles and sincerely appreciate their insights and many inspired words.  By why should I regard their opinions on the gospel as being any more inspired than some lowly member that got up and spoke in sacrament meeting?  In truth, I don't.  I receive their words in the same way, through the lens of my own connection with the Holy Ghost.  If the HG whispers to me that I should heed something being said, I will.  If it doesn't, I don't.  The prophets say a LOT that IS inspired.  But they also say quite a bit that isn't. 

[omni]

Well I just learned in a hard way how some of the features of this forum work.  Don't click the arrow, it will blow how the long reply you spent forever typing.  The short version.

 

1) Previous commenter expressed his opinion that the dark-skinned curse was a natural thing, the result of breeding with the darker-skinned locals, resulting in a change in skin tone over a generation.  I agree.  Not aware of any scripture that suggests otherwise, or that dark skin in of itself is indicative of some kind of curse or innate unrighteousness.  However I do understand how people who existed in cultures far removed from our own could have such a false impression.

 

 

I'm glad to see that some are moving in this direction rather than keeping the traditional interpretation of a racist God cursing his children with a black skin.  However, this reinterpretation must provide for a new set of illogical conclusions within the traditional Mormon paradigm.  

 

First of all the text itself does not hint towards intermarriage as the cause of the curse, one instead must make that leap due to our modern sensibilities.  That being said, the most significant problem raised is why has the errant interpretation remained for so long and why has it not been repudiated today?  Even if the Nephites wrote the scripture with the errant explanation in mind, why didn't God clarify the issue while Joseph was translating?  Surely an omnipotent God would realize this abhorrent interpretation and correct it at the source--his most holy of scripture.  Is there anyone here who has not prayed for guidance and inspiration before giving a talk or lesson in church?  If God can provide us that inspiration for a lesson, why could he not do the same to his mouthpiece, the prophets and inspire them to give us the correct interpretation of scripture?

 

Judging from the latter portion of you post it seems you take an unconventional approach to revelation and the role of prophets.  So what is the benefit of prophets today, are they not simply glorified administrators?

[wtrdog]

I'm glad to see that some are moving in this direction rather than keeping the traditional interpretation of a racist God cursing his children with a black skin.  However, this reinterpretation must provide for a new set of illogical conclusions within the traditional Mormon paradigm.  

 

First of all the text itself does not hint towards intermarriage as the cause of the curse, one instead must make that leap due to our modern sensibilities.  That being said, the most significant problem raised is why has the errant interpretation remained for so long and why has it not been repudiated today?  Even if the Nephites wrote the scripture with the errant explanation in mind, why didn't God clarify the issue while Joseph was translating?  Surely an omnipotent God would realize this abhorrent interpretation and correct it at the source--his most holy of scripture.  Is there anyone here who has not prayed for guidance and inspiration before giving a talk or lesson in church?  If God can provide us that inspiration for a lesson, why could he not do the same to his mouthpiece, the prophets and inspire them to give us the correct interpretation of scripture?

 

A better question to ask is: Why would the Lord change Nephi's words?  If the Lord's going to do that, why give us a record of the Nephites at all?  Why not just etch everything we need to know on stone tablets, or even into the clouds, and deliver it that way?  The easy answer to that is the Plan of Salvation and the importance of Free Agency.  I think this also goes into a discussion about the nature of growth and progress.  In my opinion we don't just grow individually but as a group, it's a team effort.  The only reason we think the way we do about race is because of all backwardness that existed before us.  Unfortunate history, yet also essential to getting us where we are now.  How can we learn from the mistakes of others if nobody else made any mistakes?  I don't think we can.  And that process certainly isn't over. The ultimate objective is to become masters of the spirit of the law. Different people are at different stages.  Some lessons take more time and the whole point of being here is that we may be free to trip and fall.