jkwilliams Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 I sometimes find that something in my former life rises up and bites me in the b***. Bummer. At least for me. It's my fault for coming back here. Be well.
KevinG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Bigger question were Adam and Eve the ancestors of the Neanderthal? Its now known that White Europeans have the greatest percentage of Neanderthal genes. One would expect that if "Eve" was the Mother of All Living, that between her and her husband they must have had all the genes for all the races or else there was a tremendous amount of mutation going on. If there was a tremendous amount of mutation going on, then it would seem that whichever race was the oldest known race -- then that would be the one which most resembled Adam and Eve. I don't know of any study which states which race was the first to appear. If we go by the Bible, then basically the races would have been established by the time of Noah. My bet is that the first interaction with the Neanderthals was pretty early on. There is some evidence that redheads which are frequently associated with northern Europe have less tolerance to sun, but a greater ability to generate Vitamin D naturally from sunlight. Thus if you were to lay down bets, and if the geneticists are right that humans came out of Africa and moved North -- then one thing would seem to be certain, Adam and Eve were probably not redheads. At what point in human genetic drift were Adam and Eve found? (I know this might rankle some Biblical literalists). If we put them back in 73,000 BCE than they might be black. If we put them at 4000 BCE then they could be anything. But given their descendants over the next 4000 years middle eastern tan is most likely.
JAHS Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Bigger question were Adam and Eve the ancestors of the Neanderthal? Its now known that White Europeans have the greatest percentage of Neanderthal genes. One would expect that if "Eve" was the Mother of All Living, that between her and her husband they must have had all the genes for all the races or else there was a tremendous amount of mutation going on. If there was a tremendous amount of mutation going on, then it would seem that whichever race was the oldest known race -- then that would be the one which most resembled Adam and Eve. I don't know of any study which states which race was the first to appear. If we go by the Bible, then basically the races would have been established by the time of Noah. My bet is that the first interaction with the Neanderthals was pretty early on. There is some evidence that redheads which are frequently associated with northern Europe have less tolerance to sun, but a greater ability to generate Vitamin D naturally from sunlight. Thus if you were to lay down bets, and if the geneticists are right that humans came out of Africa and moved North -- then one thing would seem to be certain, Adam and Eve were probably not redheads."Bigger question were Adam and Eve the ancestors of the Neanderthal?" I had one of those DNA tests done and I found out I was 1.5% Neanderthal. 1
ERayR Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 At what point in human genetic drift were Adam and Eve found? (I know this might rankle some Biblical literalists). If we put them back in 73,000 BCE than they might be black. If we put them at 4000 BCE then they could be anything. But given their descendants over the next 4000 years middle eastern tan is most likely. What would be nice is to be able to put them where God put them.
ERayR Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 "Bigger question were Adam and Eve the ancestors of the Neanderthal?" I had one of those DNA tests done and I found out I was 1.5% Neanderthal. I don't need one of those tests. My kids tell me all the time that I am a Neanderthal. I just smile and ask them where that leaves them.
KevinG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 What would be nice is to be able to put them where God put them. At the head of our family. That is all we know from the Scriptures. I'm not sure what descriptions in Genesis are figurative and which are literal. We do know we refer to years as epochs interchangeably in the creation story. Like I said I'm opening a can of worms, but I don't think we know enough to say how much melanin Adam and Eve had.
Ahab Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 I suppose the best thing I can tell my friend is that people here thought his question inappropriate. My answer yesterday was that I thought that, like me, most church members probably didn't care one way or the other. I don't think I'll tell him that some think he doesn't belong in the temple, though he might get a kick out of it. Sometimes I think he really does believe that, with enough prodding, I'll go back.Anyway, sorry again for this thread. Be well.Knock it off already and just tell "your friend" what I told you.White includes every color.Now go on your way rejoicing.
Brian 2.0 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Knock it off already and just tell "your friend" what I told you.White includes every color.Now go on your way rejoicing. Now I know you're just trolling. Or never read direct replies to your posts.
Ahab Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Now I know you're just trolling. Or never read direct replies to your posts.Or do not agree or approve of other's replies when they do not agree with mine.At least I don't call people trolls when they do not agree with me, Mr. Brian 2.0.
KevinG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 C'mon Ahab, you deserve scorn and guilt for not being absolutely Christlike in your response to someone claiming you are full of hot, racist air.
Brian 2.0 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Or do not agree or approve of other's replies when they do not agree with mine.At least I don't call people trolls when they do not agree with me, Mr. Brian 2.0. I didn't know troll was such a bad word. My bad. It just seems like you are having a laugh or something for repeating the same advice over and over without commenting on the posts that point out why your advice doesn't really make sense. Edited August 24, 2015 by Brian 2.0
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 I didn't know troll was such a bad word. My bad. It just seems like you are having a laugh or something for repeating the same advice over and over without commenting on the posts that point out why your advice doesn't really makes sense. It is not, people troll for responses all the time. Some people are habitual trolls. Those people I generally have an issue with. I even troll sometimes. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) 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. and I know all of that, none of your quotes say black skin was never a curse. I am not talking about the priesthood ban or "neutral in heaven" Many LDS believe dark skin is a curse because the Book of Mormon appears to be saying that. At least the LDS in my stake, trust me. The pearl of great price also talks about the mark of Cain. SO CFR. Try again. Racist assumptions that have not been clearly debunked in General conference 1. Dark skin is lamanite curse2. the mark of Cain is black skin 3. the first humans had to be white Edited August 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Brian 2.0 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) It is not, people troll for responses all the time. Some people are habitual trolls. Those people I generally have an issue with. I even troll sometimes. off topic.... but I finally connected your profile photo with you user name and just read it with the right vocal intonation. I don't know why it took me so long. I used to repeat that to my younger brother as I tried to take out his heart. I mean it's even in your sig. I'm bad at connecting dots I guess. Edited August 24, 2015 by Brian 2.0 1
ERayR Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 C'mon Ahab, you deserve scorn and guilt for not being absolutely Christlike in your response to someone claiming you are full of hot, racist air. Oh come off of questioning someones Christian charity simply because they don't agree with your POV. If this is sarcasm please give me a hint.
KevinG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) and I know all of that, none of your quotes say black skin was never a curse. I am not talking about the priesthood ban or "neutral in heaven" Many LDS believe dark skin is a curse because the Book of Mormon appears to be saying that. The pearl of great price also talks about the mark of Cain. SO CFR. Try again. Racist assumptions that have not been clearly debunked in General conference 1. Dark skin is lamanite curse2. the mark of Cain is black skin 3. the first humans had to be white Try reading again. The quotes contradict that claim. I wish I could find the article I read in the University of Illinois library back in 1990. It was a sociological study about LDS beliefs on race. Even then a majority of adherents to the LDS religion would not have believed your assertion that skin color is considered a curse, or bought into your assertions about what the scriptures mean for contemporary blacks or people of color. When racism does rear its ugly head the Brethren are very clear to smack it down, even in General Conference (see above quotes and read more slowly this time). When the Church did clarify and receive God's intent for all races there was no schism or divide. In fact testimony after testimony of those who lived through it show there was rejoicing. You are just one more person trying to tell me what I believe (that just ain't so) in order to argue against it. I know too many Saints, black and white, from too many states and countries, to believe what you are trying to tell me about my own people. I can count the number of people who believe in the superiority of white skin that I have met in the LDS Church on one hand. That includes a good sampling of wards in Illinois, Utah, South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia. These are not the racists you are looking for. P.S...and I know what you are angling at. We didn't somehow strongly refute the folk theories of earlier times and need to take a stronger stand in a General Conference talk. You aren't going to get contemporary Saints to throw earlier Saints under the bus over what they didn't know at the time. That would be present-ism at its finest, among other errors like neglecting to remember we as a people (just like we as individuals) learn line by line, precept by precept. Or more simply as a black member and friend told me at a party when the subject came up. "You white people need to stop beating yourselves up over this and move on". Edited August 24, 2015 by KevinG 2
KevinG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Oh come off of questioning someones Christian charity simply because they don't agree with your POV. If this is sarcasm please give me a hint. SARCASM (My one liners usually come with a helping of sarcasm sauce. Sorry I didn't make that clear.) 1
ERayR Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 and I know all of that, none of your quotes say black skin was never a curse. I am not talking about the priesthood ban or "neutral in heaven" Many LDS believe dark skin is a curse because the Book of Mormon appears to be saying that. At least the LDS in my stake, trust me. The pearl of great price also talks about the mark of Cain. SO CFR. Try again. Racist assumptions that have not been clearly debunked in General conference 1. Dark skin is lamanite curse2. the mark of Cain is black skin 3. the first humans had to be white Please show references that "Many LDS believe dark skin is a curse because the Book of Mormon appears to be saying that". Please show references that the PoGP says the mark of Cain was a black skin.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) I wish I could find the article I read in the University of Illinois library back in 1990. It was a sociological study about LDS beliefs on race. Even then a majority of adherents to the LDS religion would not have believed your assertion that skin color is considered a curse You are not understanding what I am saying. In my stake many believe that black skin used to be a curse, but not in modern times.So most LDS agree that black skin is not a curse, but some believe that it was a curse in ancient times. Others believe the curse was taken away in 1978 I have not seen a statement that clarifies that dark skin was never a curse, and that the first humans were not neccesarly white. Please show references that the PoGP says the mark of Cain was a black skin. I am not saying it says that, I am saying that many LDS believe it is saying that Edited August 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 You are not understanding what I am saying. In my stake many believe that black skin used to be a curse, but not in modern times.So most LDS agree that black skin is not a curse, but some believe that it was a curse in ancient times. That is what I some LDS say. I have not seen a statement that clarifies that dark skin was never a curse, and that the first humans were not neccesarly white. What some in your stake believe is irrelevant. What is Church doctrine is. What are tou waiting for, a peer reviewed article? 1
Brian 2.0 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 You are not understanding what I am saying. In my stake many believe that black skin used to be a curse, but not in modern times.So most LDS agree that black skin is not a curse, but some believe that it was a curse in ancient times. Others believe the curse was taken away in 1978 This was the understanding taught to me while growing up as well. It's like the reverse of beards being unacceptable now, yet Christ had a beard.
KevinG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 You are not understanding what I am saying. In my stake many believe that black skin used to be a curse, but not in modern times.So most LDS agree that black skin is not a curse, but some believe that it was a curse in ancient times. Others believe the curse was taken away in 1978 I have not seen a statement that clarifies that dark skin was never a curse, and that the first humans were not neccesarly white. I am not saying it says that, I am saying that many LDS believe it is saying that Tell them they are wrong. Even in 1907 they were wrong. 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. Tell them they are wrong and have no excuse today: 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. ... Elder Jeffrey R. Holland I don't know what the people in your Stake are hung up on. The old folklore and awkward justifications for a wrong policy are debunked. They should move on and catch up with the great majority of the Saints who believe their prophets when they say racism is ugly and un-Christlike. 1
Brian 2.0 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 They should move on and catch up with the great majority of the Saints who believe their prophets when they say racism is ugly and un-Christlike. There are plenty of people that believe (or used to believe) that God put a mark of black skin on Cain's seed and the Laminates while ALSO believing that idea is NOT racist.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Tell them they are wrong. Even in 1907 they were wrong Maybe LDS did not believe that in your stake, but my stake is different. Again, all LDS agree black skin is not a curse, but some believe it used to be in ancient times. See the difference? I don't know what the people in your Stake are hung up on. The old folklore and awkward justifications for a wrong policy are debunked. They should move on and catch up with the great majority of the Saints who believe their prophets when they say racism is ugly and un-Christlike.Well, even Brian agrees, he just said This was the understanding taught to me while growing up as well. and that is why we need a black Adam. Our church is an international church, many countries don't have access your quotes anyway. There are plenty of people that believe (or used to believe) that God put a mark of black skin on Cain's seed and the Laminates while ALSO believing that idea is NOT racist. I love being right Edited August 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Ahab Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 I didn't know troll was such a bad word. My bad. It just seems like you are having a laugh or something for repeating the same advice over and over without commenting on the posts that point out why your advice doesn't really make sense.I did comment on them. Maybe you missed one.Why do you suppose my idea and my advice do not make sense?And yes I am always laughing inside, if not on the outside, when I see something funny.
Recommended Posts