Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[Rivers]

I once asked my wife how she felt about the racist Book of Mormon verses.  She replied that she didn't find anything racist about them by explaining that the Lord was simply giving the Lamanites an extra tan so the Nephites could recognize them as Lamanites.  I think a lot of members of the church view things that way.  Do some of us read too much into it?

Edited January 26, 2014 by Rivers

[california boy]

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. 

I think you bring up some very important questions.  They are questions members don't like to ask.  There is a culture in the church that counters every thing you state.  If someone doesn't agree with what "the bretheren" say, then there is this attitude that they lack faith.  That they are headed for apostasy.  That they need to repent for even thinking something counter to church policy even when it has never been proclaimed as doctrine.  There is also a culture that people want to claim church policy as doctrine.  The proclaimation on the family is a perfect example.  Even the bretheren are unwilling to claim it came through revelation, yet many claim it as official doctrine.  And then there is a very gray area.  Is facial hair something undesired in a faithful member.  How about tattoos, or multiple ear piercings?  Is Coke against the word of wisdom?  Certainly many would say no to all of those questions.  But, and maybe more interesting, there are some that would claim all of those things are the will of God because the counsel came from the prophet.

 

The real question is what current "doctrine" are similar to the blacks and the priesthood?  Are there any other "doctrines" out there that have the same kind of lineage as the priesthood ban?  If so, what are they?  And if there is, what does the church do about it?  Has any errant doctrine ever been corrected without significant pressure from either within or without the church?  Or is the priesthood ban a one off "mistake".

[Stone holm]

I once asked my wife how she felt about the racist Book of Mormon verses.  She replied that she didn't find anything racist about them by explaining that the Lord was simply giving the Lamanites an extra tan so the Nephites could recognize them as Lamanites.  I think a lot of members of the church view things that way.  Do some of us read too much into it?

My wife for a long time denied they were racist, but she finally had a Eureka moment and realized they were, which really mostly proves that the culture of that time period was racist.

[thesometimesaint]

To me there is a difference between Doctrine and Policy.

 

Doctrine we find in the Scriptures. Policy is found in the Church Handbook of Administration.

[Stone holm]

To me there is a difference between Doctrine and Policy.

 

Doctrine we find in the Scriptures. Policy is found in the Church Handbook of Administration.

Just because it is in the Scriptures does not mean its doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

Just because it is in the Scriptures does not mean its doctrine.

 

Our doctrine is the Scriptures as far as they are translated correctly.

[wtrdog]

I think you bring up some very important questions.  They are questions members don't like to ask.  There is a culture in the church that counters every thing you state.  If someone doesn't agree with what "the bretheren" say, then there is this attitude that they lack faith.  That they are headed for apostasy.  That they need to repent for even thinking something counter to church policy even when it has never been proclaimed as doctrine.  There is also a culture that people want to claim church policy as doctrine.  The proclaimation on the family is a perfect example.  Even the bretheren are unwilling to claim it came through revelation, yet many claim it as official doctrine.  And then there is a very gray area.  Is facial hair something undesired in a faithful member.  How about tattoos, or multiple ear piercings?  Is Coke against the word of wisdom?  Certainly many would say no to all of those questions.  But, and maybe more interesting, there are some that would claim all of those things are the will of God because the counsel came from the prophet.

 

The real question is what current "doctrine" are similar to the blacks and the priesthood?  Are there any other "doctrines" out there that have the same kind of lineage as the priesthood ban?  If so, what are they?  And if there is, what does the church do about it?  Has any errant doctrine ever been corrected without significant pressure from either within or without the church?  Or is the priesthood ban a one off "mistake".

 

I'm not sure what you mean by current "doctrine" similar to blacks and the priesthood...?  You mean any false doctrine in the church?  Tons of that, we could go down a list.  

[california boy]

I'm not sure what you mean by current "doctrine" similar to blacks and the priesthood...?  You mean any false doctrine in the church?  Tons of that, we could go down a list.  

I would be interested in what you and others think that list would be.

[wtrdog]

Bump.  

 

 

I would be interested in what you and others think that list would be.

 

 

Before getting into a deeper discussion I'd like to hear from some others.  A bit disappointed nobody else has jumped in.  Is this topic just too controversial for most members?

[mormonnewb]

I think you bring up some very important questions. They are questions members don't like to ask. There is a culture in the church that counters every thing you state. If someone doesn't agree with what "the bretheren" say, then there is this attitude that they lack faith. That they are headed for apostasy. That they need to repent for even thinking something counter to church policy even when it has never been proclaimed as doctrine. There is also a culture that people want to claim church policy as doctrine. The proclaimation on the family is a perfect example. Even the bretheren are unwilling to claim it came through revelation, yet many claim it as official doctrine. And then there is a very gray area. Is facial hair something undesired in a faithful member. How about tattoos, or multiple ear piercings? Is Coke against the word of wisdom? Certainly many would say no to all of those questions. But, and maybe more interesting, there are some that would claim all of those things are the will of God because the counsel came from the prophet.

The real question is what current "doctrine" are similar to the blacks and the priesthood? Are there any other "doctrines" out there that have the same kind of lineage as the priesthood ban? If so, what are they? And if there is, what does the church do about it? Has any errant doctrine ever been corrected without significant pressure from either within or without the church? Or is the priesthood ban a one off "mistake".

A one-off mistake? What about polygamy? Also, I can think of a current mistake (our stance on homosexuality) that we will spend the next 50 years (not quite) apologizing for.

I find it hilarious that just about every conference Pres Uchtdorf attempts to burst the bubble of prophet infallibility and it falls on deaf ears. Last conference, he practically screamed it. Even the NY Times heard it and wrote a piece on the talk (has that EVER happened before?)

Yet, when I talk to other members, the most memorable part of the talk for them was when Pres Uchtdorf encouraged us to "doubt our doubts."

I think for some members, the prophets allow them to feel a sense of security. At a recent Sunday school lesson, the discussion turned to the challenges of truly living the Christian life. One of our kindest and most loving saints interjected that it wasn't difficult at all if we will just be 100% obedient to the council of the prophets. As she sees it, even if her actions are later proven to be wrong, her obedience will make her "right."

For a long time, I thought this idea of blind obedience was dangerous but given that she is TENFOLD the Christian that I am, perhaps there's something to it. Besides, our church does have an institutional check on the prophets running amuck -- the geriocracy. Our leaders are simply too "mature " to announce some radical policy. It's a "prophetic milestone" when they drop the mission age by one year.

Given the church culture, this probably all works for the best.

[Grudunza]

My wife for a long time denied they were racist, but she finally had a Eureka moment and realized they were, which really mostly proves that the culture of that time period was racist.

I recommend listening to the FAIR podcast #132: Skin Color & Curses, for a detailed look at all of the specific "white/black" and "skin" references in the BoM. All refer to spiritual purity.

[Stone holm]

I recommend listening to the FAIR podcast #132: Skin Color & Curses, for a detailed look at all of the specific "white/black" and "skin" references in the BoM. All refer to spiritual purity.

Yeah, that's not really credible.

[Grudunza]

Yeah, that's not really credible.

In what way? Have you listened to it?

[Grudunza]

Whoops, it's actually episode #129. The title is right, though... Skin Color & Curses.

[BCSpace]

I once asked my wife how she felt about the racist Book of Mormon verses.  She replied that she didn't find anything racist about them by explaining that the Lord was simply giving the Lamanites an extra tan so the Nephites could recognize them as Lamanites.  I think a lot of members of the church view things that way.  Do some of us read too much into it?

 

Some do. There is nothing racist about the verses or the Priesthood ban as there is nothing implied that there is some sort of inferiority that is because of skin color.

[BCSpace]

Doctrine we find in the Scriptures. Policy is found in the Church Handbook of Administration.

 

IIRC, I think you'll find that in recent general training on the Handbooks, the apostles refer to them as doctrine.  In any case, they meet the definition for doctrine (published by the Church so they are indeed doctrine.  Doctrine and policy are one and the same as the one flows directly from the other.