Were Adam And Eve White?

[ERayR]

Always a mole hill to find.  

 

Grab your climbing gear.

[KevinG]

Skeptical Christian,

 

For the CFR that Church leaders are teaching that the ban on blacks was non-doctrinal...  Start with the Official Declaration itself.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng  Which declares all worthy male members of the Church should have the priesthood.

 

Then go to this from the Prophet Gordon B Hinkley in General Conference in 2006

 

 

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

 

Then go to this essay on lds.org for the world to see:  

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#24

 

and this great quote from an LDS press release:

 

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

 

And if you have exhausted these sources of official doctrine and policy you may want to look into other presentations regarding race from Apostles and Prophets:

 

 

 

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

 

 

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles. - Bruce R McConkie 

 

 

 

• Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,' you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. ...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. ...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.^[2]

• Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ... It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.^[3]

• Elder Alexander B. Morrison:

We do not know.^{[4]   (From Fairmormon.org)}

 

Now it took me about 10 minutes to find all of these quotes from Apostles and Prophets, some from General Conference talks.  You should be able to find more.

 

CFR for you now.  Find a current official source that supports the doctrine of Cain and Ham, the inferiority of blacks, or any other accusation you make for a "significant" number of Saints.

 

I understand you are out of responses for today...  that's OK- these comments will stand and wait for a response later if you wish.  Thanks!

Edited August 24, 2015 by KevinG

[ERayR]

Not all. There is a Sign Language version. I don't know if they are dubbed or not, but I suspect they are. 

 

Will there someday be various skin colors presented in the ceremony? I sure hope so. I long for the day when all are judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. 

 

Are you saying that the temple ceremonies are judging people by their skin color.  I just do not remember which part it is that says "all these blessings are not for non-white members.

[Calm]

 

Let's tell the church we want to see a black Adam or Eve, at least for one film

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

P: (801) 240-1000

50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States

 

 

Have you written your letter yet?

[Thinking]

I'm wondering if anybody has seen a non-white Adam or Eve in a live session.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Have you written your letter yet?

I am willing to wage the he will never write that letter. Ha.

[ERayR]

 

A significant number of church leaders taught racist assumptions for years, it is time for our church to send a message against racist assumptions, especially to reinforce what it say in the new essay.

 

So let it be written, so let it be done

 

We need to tell the church that we want to see a black Adam or Eve, at least for one temple film

 

See above

 

Let's tell that church that, it is very important

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

P: (801) 240-1000

50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States

 

Just send them your edict, that ought to suffice.

[KevinG]

I'm wondering if anybody has seen a non-white Adam or Eve in a live session.

 

Not me, but when I had the opportunity to go in Salt Lake City and Manti, Adam and Ever were extremely wrinkly and stooped.  It must have been after they got kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

[Stargazer]

That sure would have made it easier for the guards in the Garden of Gethsemane if Judas would have just said, "get the guy with the blue eyes".  

 

Well, at night perhaps all eyes are grey

[VideoGameJunkie]

Can you imagine the outcry if the church chose a black actor to portray Lucifer in the temple video?

[ERayR]

Can you imagine the outcry if the church chose a black actor to portray Lucifer in the temple video?

Sometimes you just can't win.

[KevinG]

Sometimes you just can't win.

 

Use more Polynesians.  The BYU football team does it.

[mfbukowski]

Admittedly, I haven't been to the temple in about 9 years, but last I heard, the actors playing Adam and Eve were white Americans. I notice there's some controversy out there about the physical features of our earliest ancestors, who apparently came from Africa. A number of people have suggested that Adam and Eve would have been black. I wonder if having actors who are not Caucasian might be more inclusive to members around the world.

Are you serious?

Have you totally lost it or are you just trying to make fun of us?

[Calm]

If all the actors were black, I doubt if anyone would protest if Lucifer was as well.

Edited August 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Use more Polynesians.  The BYU football team does it.

 

Might be a solution it seems to work ok for the BYU team.

[HappyJackWagon]

Are you serious?

Have you totally lost it or are you just trying to make fun of us?

??

 

Why is that question considered mockery?

Is it because the question assumes Adam and Eve are literal people as most LDS would believe?

[ERayR]

If all the actors were black, I doubt if anyone would protest if Lucifer was as well.

 

Not temple recommend holders but watch out when the bootleg copy hit the net.

[mfbukowski]

As Adam and Eve are metaphorical rather than historical persons, I think any color for the actors should be fine.

Agreed. What a ridiculous topic! Let's stir up some racist feelings and make fun of the saints! That should be good for a laugh or two!

[KevinG]

Not temple recommend holders but watch out when the bootleg copy hit the net.

 

 

...and even if all parts were portrayed by blacks, you know what segments would be highlighted on the critics websites.  

[jkwilliams]

Are you serious?

Have you totally lost it or are you just trying to make fun of us?

 

As I said, an LDS friend asked me that yesterday. I'd never even thought about it before, but I wondered what people here thought. But you should know I lost it a long time ago.

[KevinG]

Agreed. What a ridiculous topic! Let's stir up some racist feelings and make fun of the saints! That should be good for a laugh or two!

 

No faithful Saints bit.  Despite the attempts to portray us as racist.

 

My comments that the period of time we believe Adam and Eve to have lived, along with biblical genealogies would indicate a middle-eastern or Levant ethnicity is most likely, but that the out of Africa theory puts too much time between the origins of man and the origins of the covenant people to indicate what skin color would be likely.  But that opens up a whole 'nother can of Nibley flavored niblets- to declare that Adam and Eve might not be the literal origin of humanoids/homo sapiens.

[mfbukowski]

??

 

Why is that question considered mockery?

Is it because the question assumes Adam and Eve are literal people as most LDS would believe?

Obviously as literal people we have no clue what they "really looked like" so any proxy will do. Does the witness couple have to look like the real Adam and Eve?? Where does this nonsense stop??

If some people think these are actual videos of Adam personally and Even personally, then I don't know what to say.

Better yet, let's note the race of every individual who gets ordinances in the temple and make sure we have the same race as proxies. Good idea? {sarcasm}

[jkwilliams]

Agreed. What a ridiculous topic! Let's stir up some racist feelings and make fun of the saints! That should be good for a laugh or two!

 

Now I have to ask: are you serious? Sheesh. I got asked a question by an LDS friend yesterday, and I was curious what people here thought. Have I said anything about racism or making fun of church members? Give me a break.

[jkwilliams]

No faithful Saints bit.  Despite the attempts to portray us as racist.

 

My comments that the period of time we believe Adam and Eve to have lived, along with biblical genealogies would indicate a middle-eastern or Levant ethnicity is most likely, but that the out of Africa theory puts too much time between the origins of man and the origins of the covenant people to indicate what skin color would be likely.  But that opens up a whole 'nother can of Nibley flavored niblets- to declare that Adam and Eve might not be the literal origin of humanoids/homo sapiens.

 

In what way did I attempt to portray you (I assume you mean the church) as racist? This is ridiculous.

[mfbukowski]

As I said, an LDS friend asked me that yesterday. I'd never even thought about it before, but I wondered what people here thought. But you should know I lost it a long time ago.

Tell him he doesn't understand the idea of symbols and start with A, B, C, D........