Jump to content

The Underlying Principles For Mark E Petersen's Address


Recommended Posts

You like podcasts, iirc. Haven't listened, but it sounds like this would be useful for you (covers the book plus more) Ardis Parshall is excellent with history as well, so an additional reason to listen:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/mip-22-reeve-parshall-p1/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/mip-23-mormonism-race-reeve-parshall-p2/

I listened to some of the first podcast and fell asleep now I'm awake :(, not because it was boring. They brought out things I'd never heard before. I'll finish both tomorrow. Thanks for the links also. I read the summary on Amazon. Will be good to hear more about it later.
Link to comment

I guess the church alluding to it in the Gospel Topics essay made me think it's possible that blacks being denied the PH was probably not from God but racist leaders apparently, who read it wrong in the Bible, IMO. They're readers of the Bible, not writers, they misunderstood the writings as you mentioned, about it not being the skin.

Which btw, there is variation in the pigmant of an indian's skin. From black to lighter skin or reddiah skin tones. Speaking of skin color, check out this YouTube of the origin of the human race.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&rct=j&q=origin%20of%20human%20race&ved=0CEwQtwIwDWoVChMIgoX-2IL4xwIVzzeICh1deQSl&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKUZDTzrOZ2o&usg=AFQjCNH5mrh9m_ChrQb0asw8_bCqu7rtSA

 

I'm aware that there is skin tone variations. But stereotypes and broad labeling of groups (particularly in this time....they weren't exactly racially sensitive) would have labeled them all broadly as red. To date I haven't met one native who I would describe as red

 

And... I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing, in my mind I would think you'd want the denial of the PH to blacks, to be of man, not God. Or why was the ban put in place? Just something to do with Africans? I don't understand. But as you mention, there were the natives in the BoM, not blacks which JS could have used as a narrative. But more than likely it could have stemmed from this...

 

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding my position a little. I'll simplify it:

 

I don't read the bible, BoM, PogP, or D&C to have anything to do with modern ideas about races. Nor do I view the text as inherently racist or race oriented.  I do not view them as explaining any origin of racial differences of any peoples.

 

I do believe that, because of the racial context of the 19th and 20th century, racist ideas were read into the texts as explanations for racial differences, particularly with the 2 minority groups most common in the American scene (ie. Blacks and Natives) 

 

I do not think the commencement of the Ban was of God. I think it was self-imposed by man over time, justified by said scriptural misinterpretations, and stayed in place because it was a societal sin, not just a mis-step of one prophet or apostle. Basically the body of the church closed that door because of their social attitudes that placed blacks as lower and their justifications for treating them as such...much of which was not Mormon specific. the Lord would "lift it" when the people began to truly repent (ie. turn away from racist notions and structures...or had learned line upon line enough to be able to truly be open to seeing those of african-decsent as equal brothers and sisters).

 

These are my opinions. Beyond that, you should definitely look up Paul Reeve's stuff, as Cal mentioned.

 

And could you be specific about what you wanted me to read in the link you provided. I read what you said, but don't know the question.

 

 

You had asked how I see it differently and I gave you a brief synopsis for that. I was just curious what you thought of it. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

I'm aware that there is skin tone variations. But stereotypes and broad labeling of groups (particularly in this time....they weren't exactly racially sensitive) would have labeled them all broadly as red. To date I haven't met one native who I would describe as red

I think you're misunderstanding my position a little. I'll simplify it:

I don't read the bible, BoM, PogP, or D&C to have anything to do with modern ideas about races. Nor do I view the text as inherently racist or race oriented. I do not view them as explaining any origin of racial differences of any peoples.

I do believe that, because of the racial context of the 19th and 20th century, racist ideas were read into the texts as explanations for racial differences, particularly with the 2 minority groups most common in the American scene (ie. Blacks and Natives)

I do not think the commencement of the Ban was of God. I think it was self-imposed by man over time, justified by said scriptural misinterpretations, and stayed in place because it was a societal sin, not just a mis-step of one prophet or apostle. Basically the body of the church closed that door because of their social attitudes that placed blacks as lower and their justifications for treating them as such...much of which was not Mormon specific. the Lord would "lift it" when the people began to truly repent (ie. turn away from racist notions and structures...or had learned line upon line enough to be able to truly be open to seeing those of african-decsent as equal brothers and sisters).

These are my opinions. Beyond that, you should definitely look up Paul Reeve's stuff, as Cal mentioned.

You had asked how I see it differently and I gave you a brief synopsis for that. I was just curious what you thought of it.

With luv,

BD

I believe this too. Embarrassing that I didn't convey my thoughts as well. Everything you said, is what I thought I was saying, for the most part. I don't read my scriptures like you do probably, but should, then I'd be more confident

Where did the mistake come that led you to believe I felt different? I thought I've been saying the same thing all along, and now see that we both thought the same thing.

ETA: I guess natives were slaves also, back in the day.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

I believe this too. Embarrassing that I didn't convey my thoughts as well. Everything you said, is what I thought I was saying, for the most part. I don't read my scriptures like you do probably, but should, then I'd be more confident

Where did the mistake come that led you to believe I felt different? I thought I've been saying the same thing all along, and now see that we both thought the same thing.

ETA: I guess natives were slaves also, back in the day.

 

I think it may be how we're reading the parts about "a skin of blackness" or the "cursing which hath come upon their skins." I don't have any problem with the wording and do not view it as 19th century racism written into the text. I don't think these terms have anything to do with literal skin tone change. But are used to tie into varying descriptors of those who enter into a state of apostasy. I think that the early saints (and still some saints today, sadly) incorrectly interpreted these phrases as dealing with skin tone because, initially, it fit into their racial narrative and later it became the general assumption and therefore presumed doctrinal truth. 

 

From what I was getting you were stating that reading these phrases as anything other than their (JS/others) race ideas inserted into text was being a "little in denial." Ie. the only way to read them was to assume it was indicating a literal skin tone change and these passages were therefore false interpretations or JS authoring too much of his time into them.

 

I'm not really sure where you were getting anything to do with the PH ban....I wasn't talking about that, personally.  

 

 

Edit: some natives were slaves....it depended the region and the groups you were talking about. For example, the reason the african slave trade was deemed needed in certain areas (such as dominica) was because their enslavement of the native population had decimated their numbers. They had literally worked them to death and basic extinction. The colonies used them less as slaves, but saw them as problem populations who were uncivilized and/or a threat. At best, they were often deemed in the way of progress and manifest destiny or in need of civilizing. The worst made them less than human, savage, and right to kill, harass, and expel from their lands 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

I think it may be how we're reading the parts about "a skin of blackness" or the "cursing which hath come upon their skins." I don't have any problem with the wording and do not view it as 19th century racism written into the text. I don't think these terms have anything to do with literal skin tone change. But are used to tie into varying descriptors of those who enter into a state of apostasy. I think that the early saints (and still some saints today, sadly) incorrectly interpreted these phrases as dealing with skin tone because, initially, it fit into their racial narrative and later it became the general assumption and therefore presumed doctrinal truth. 

 

From what I was getting you were stating that reading these phrases as anything other than their (JS/others) race ideas inserted into text was being a "little in denial." Ie. the only way to read them was to assume it was indicating a literal skin tone change and these passages were therefore false interpretations or JS authoring too much of his time into them.

 

I'm not really sure where you were getting anything to do with the PH ban....I wasn't talking about that, personally.  

 

 

Edit: some natives were slaves....it depended the region and the groups you were talking about. For example, the reason the african slave trade was deemed needed in certain areas (such as dominica) was because their enslavement of the native population had decimated their numbers. They had literally worked them to death and basic extinction. The colonies used them less as slaves, but saw them as problem populations who were uncivilized and/or a threat. At best, they were often deemed in the way of progress and manifest destiny or in need of civilizing. The worst made them less than human, savage, and right to kill, harass, and expel from their lands 

I admit I believed that about the BoM scriptures, because it appears to be so obvious that they're meaning black skin.  Sorry about stating that you or others were in denial over this.  I guess there is a plausible way it could mean something else.  I once listened to a Brant Gardner interview with John Dehlin about the translation of the BoM and that of it not being the skin also.  I guess I didn't give it much credit.  But if I were a TBM at the time and wanted the BoM to be true, I'd believe Gardner.  I'm in a better phase now to re-listen and take it more seriously.   

 

I'll link the podcast below if you're interested.      

 

http://mormonstories.org/307-311-translating-the-book-of-mormon-with-brant-gardner/

 

I see now where my mistake was, and how it offended.  Have a great day, BlueDreams! 

Link to comment

I admit I believed that about the BoM scriptures, because it appears to be so obvious that they're meaning black skin.  Sorry about stating that you or others were in denial over this.  I guess there is a plausible way it could mean something else.  I once listened to a Brant Gardner interview with John Dehlin about the translation of the BoM and that of it not being the skin also.  I guess I didn't give it much credit.  But if I were a TBM at the time and wanted the BoM to be true, I'd believe Gardner.  I'm in a better phase now to re-listen and take it more seriously.   

 

 

I did too a while back....because that's how it was introduced to me, both from family and other sources. I went through several stages of understanding those scriptures in different ways before coming to a peace about how I read them now, largely after the big scripture study, wanting to have a more congruent reading between the varying books. I can understand why it feels "obvious," because when it's the one we're presented without any alternatives it's the one we're going to see first. Even today I'll have moments of "double vision" while reading. I read it as I do now and it feels obvious to me now....but I can still see how and where I saw it differently. 

 

Study up, and enjoy it while you do! :) 

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

I admit I believed that about the BoM scriptures, because it appears to be so obvious that they're meaning black skin.  Sorry about stating that you or others were in denial over this.  I guess there is a plausible way it could mean something else.  I once listened to a Brant Gardner interview with John Dehlin about the translation of the BoM and that of it not being the skin also.  I guess I didn't give it much credit.  But if I were a TBM at the time and wanted the BoM to be true, I'd believe Gardner.  I'm in a better phase now to re-listen and take it more seriously.   

 

I'll link the podcast below if you're interested.      

 

http://mormonstories.org/307-311-translating-the-book-of-mormon-with-brant-gardner/

 

I see now where my mistake was, and how it offended.  Have a great day, BlueDreams! 

 

Did you also believe that it was talking about Native Americans (a.k.a. "Indians?")

 

Is it your understanding that Native Americans are black?

Link to comment

Did you also believe that it was talking about Native Americans (a.k.a. "Indians?")

Is it your understanding that Native Americans are black?

No, I know the difference, lol. Although there are varied red to black skinned Indians come to think of it. Or whatever color the cursed people were given. So not white and delightsome. ;) Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

I'm not sure why this got resurrected, but Tacenda....you know what your saying makes absolutely no sense right?

No, I know the difference, lol. Although there are varied red to black skinned Indians come to think of it. Or whatever color the cursed people were given. So not white and delightsome.  ;)

 

 I honestly don't know how to respond to that. I've never met a "red" or "black skinned Indian" in my life...and I know quite a few Natives. This is obviously being flippant about "black" in scriptures to make it fit a definition that broadens the definition to just about every tone that's not nordic. And it just sounds ridiculous.

 

Also, while I'm at it

Which btw, there is variation in the pigmant of an indian's skin. From black to lighter skin or reddiah skin tones. Speaking of skin color, check out this YouTube of the origin of the human race.

http://www.google.co...0asw8_bCqu7rtSA

 

 

Did you actually listen to this video??? It's terrible. It's basically conspiracy alien theorist meets quasi-racism. Please tell me this is not where you get your understanding of human genetics and you just googled this and found whatever video that mentioned the origin of the human race in the title. Sloppy research to try and make a point, to me, would be a million times better than you thinking this had some good ideas. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

I'm not sure why this got resurrected, but Tacenda....you know what your saying makes absolutely no sense right?

 I honestly don't know how to respond to that. I've never met a "red" or "black skinned Indian" in my life...and I know quite a few Natives. This is obviously being flippant about "black" in scriptures to make it fit a definition that broadens the definition to just about every tone that's not nordic. And it just sounds ridiculous.

 

Also, while I'm at it

 

Did you actually listen to this video??? It's terrible. It's basically conspiracy alien theorist meets quasi-racism. Please tell me this is not where you get your understanding of human genetics and you just googled this and found whatever video that mentioned the origin of the human race in the title. Sloppy research to try and make a point, to me, would be a million times better than you thinking this had some good ideas. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

That must have been an old post, did I post that you tube?  Yes, I was being flippant to McGregor.  I don't know why he resurrected the thread just to make a comment about my believing Native Indians are black.  And I don't know why you disagree that their skin varies, come to think of it they have skin that goes from lighter skin to blacker skin and everything in between, depending on their origins perhaps.  I don't know why y'all are picking on me.  ETA:  Now I know the problem, he said "Native Americans".  But I'm still clueless as to what he is getting at.  I wish he'd been more specific in his question.  Or am I just lost?

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

That must have been an old post, did I post that you tube?  Yes, I was being flippant to McGregor.  I don't know why he resurrected the thread just to make a comment about my believing Native Indians are black.  And I don't know why you disagree that their skin varies, come to think of it they have skin that goes from lighter skin to blacker skin and everything in between, depending on their origins perhaps.  I don't know why y'all are picking on me.  ETA:  Now I know the problem, he said "Native Americans".  But I'm still clueless as to what he is getting at.  I wish he'd been more specific in his question.  Or am I just lost?

Technically it looks like sevenbak brought this puppy back to life.

 

I don't mind flippancy and I don't disbelieve there's variety in skin. I do have a problem with how you're phrasing it, which isn't accurate, stereotyped and is archaic in terminology. In short, it sounds bad, Tacenda.

 

And ya, you posted the youtube video (it's on the page before this). I didn't watch it the first time, because I'm fairly well versed in human diversity/origin from a scientific stance. I watched it today because I was bored and was horrified. I'm not trying to pick on you...only 2 people have even responded to you recently. But I don't tolerate racial ignorance. It's a pet peeve. 

 

And I think Russel's point is that common vernacular for the term "black" doesn't fit the ethnic group the BoM would have been talking about (ie. native american groups of some sort). They weren't considered black in JS's day, they aren't now. Ie. the language for racial distinction doesn't fit the BoM language.

 

Your using racial terms interchangeably, that aren't actually meant to be used so liberally. Even in the statement of "lighter to blacker" is a problem....the phrase would be "lighter to darker" or "whiter to blacker."

 

Last thing. Their skin isn't likely to vary due to their "origin" skin tone variation does little to pinpoint actual origin or humanity....because there are relatively very few genes that control for skin tone. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...