Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, canard78 said:

It's not irrelevant mfb.

It's a simple test of whether Mormon prophets are reliable sources of divine will and doctrine.

From end to end the black ban stands as evidence that they are not.

That doesn't alter the fact that they can be good sources of advice. I'm fully willing to acknowledge them as well-meaning individuals sharing their well-considered opinions. I'd even acknowledge that the Alma 32 approach to testing their opinions often leads me to accept their words as "true" pieces of advice. But that doesn't mean that the fundamental Mormon doctrine that they are the chosen mouthpiece of God is reliable or accurate.

Well if you want to get into the epistemology of it fine.

How does that tell you if they are or are not "reliable sources of divine will and doctrine"???

How do YOU know what divine will is???  Your own testimony is the only source.  In other words, there is NO objective measure of what that even means.

Suppose God wanted a temporary ban for his own reasons.  Political? maybe.  With infinite wisdom ihe knew t might have turned the course of the civil war.  Perhaps he knew that some disaster for the church might have occurred.  Perhaps it was a test.  Abraham almost killed his only son as a test.

Even in your last sentence you are making the assumption that there CAN BE infallible human beings who could possibly convey perfectly God's will.

I am sorry to break your heart, but guess what?  Humans are fallible.  You are imposing an impossible standard on fallible humans.  You sound like some kind of fundamentalist as if human infallibility is impossible.  Coming from you?  Where do you get this stuff?  You strike me as a critical thinker and you come up with a human being a "reliable source of God's will?"

All we can do is the best each of us can do, in finding a course for each of us personally to bring us closer to our conception of God.  Alma 32 is the best anyone can do- THAT is why it is scripture.  It is pure brilliance.  What you propose sounds almost like superstition to me, frankly.

We are here to blunder through life and live by faith by making bad decisions.  The very idea that  God would have an infallible representative on earth violates that idea.  It makes the whole gospel plan inconsistent.

Stop seeing as a child and put off childish ways.  We are all here together, some wiser than others, and we all need to find our own way.

It could not be a test if all we had to do is follow an infallible leader.  We would be sheep.  As has been said "Jesus talked a lot about sheep but he did not act like one."

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Now, hold on there, Bubballooey!

You say it isn't important to know whether the priesthood ban came from God?

I have to disagree with you on this.

The Church practiced this racist ban for over 100-years.

It was claimed by the highest leaders in the Church to be "doctrine," and not "policy."

If it was not from God, the prophets who began it and perpetuated it have their prophetic calling called into question.

And if their prophetic calling is called into question, so is the prophetic calling of those that came after them.

Including President Thomas S. Monson.

This is a very important thing to know.

Guess what

You get to figure it out for yourself.

If you believe in human infallibility and the inerrancy of scripture you are in the wrong church.

If you don't know you have to trust your own testimony in everything an alleged prophet says, you are in the wrong church.

Just don't drink any cool aid until you have figured that out, Bubbalooey.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

It's a shame that these are mostly quite obscure references and also hearsay.

I'm not sure I would agree about their 'obscurity', but you are right that they are all second-hand ... which in many, many cases is the best we have to work with when it comes to historical events and figures.

Quote

There's also something of a contradiction in these stories. Some say there has been no answer, others say there was an answer given and the answer was not yet. 

My editing probably obscured the fact that Prince placed these reports in something of a chronological order. So that offers one way of resolving what some may see as a minor contradiction.

Quote

Is it significant that the essay uses a very neutral language in defining whether he received a specific answer or not.

Yes, I think the authors, knowing one segment of their audience, intentionally avoided making statements that people with an axe to grind could latch onto and scream 'dishonest'. They have tried to represent the situation in the simplest, least controversial way. I find that same approach in pretty much all of the online gospel topics.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[JAHS]

I said from God because while it might not have been a direct revelation from God to the prophet, I believe the prophet believed it was the prudent thing to do at the time and he got confirmation from God that it was the right thing to do for the safety and survival of the church.

[rodheadlee]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the true test of where we think the priesthood ban came from is to imagine how we would react if President Monson stood in Conference and revealed that God was instituting a new Priesthood ban,  

This is exactly what happened regarding SSM.

Edited to clarify my point.

Edited January 31, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

..................................................................  

And I seriously doubt God played in part in lifting the ban, either.

This is the heart of the problem for you, perhaps because you attribute infallibility to the prophets, even though you deny it in the same breath.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

......................................

If you believe in human infallibility and the inerrancy of scripture you are in the wrong church.

..........................................

We both seem to agree that this is the key assumption by the consiglieri.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

............................................

If it was not from God, the prophets who began it and perpetuated it have their prophetic calling called into question.

And if their prophetic calling is called into question, so is the prophetic calling of those that came after them.

................................................

If and only if infallibility is claimed, which it is not.  Prophets express opinions, sometimes with considerable certainty.  Yet, Pres McKay was unable to find any basis in revelation or doctrine for the priesthood ban, and he had knowledgeable people available to assist him.

[rongo]

On 1/29/2016 at 3:29 PM, Calm said:

My understanding is that Coltrin contradicted himself.  

It's interesting to compare how the same quotes are both quoted and editorialized upon at places like www.blacklds.org/quotes (near the bottom of the site) and William Berrett's booklet (attached). For those seeking to portray Joseph Smith as having nothing to do with the ban (and committing what amounts to witness/character assassination against those who say that Joseph taught them the ban --- like attorneys trying to discredit the other side's witnesses), the editorial comments that accompany their portrayal of the sources are focused on much more than the actual text itself. I find this to be very similar to how Brigham Madsen and Sterling McMurrin's editorial opinions (often ill-founded) in the introductory material to B.H. Roberts's published Book of Mormon studies are focused on much more than the actual content of what Roberts wrote ( see http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony  ).

You had indicated that you linked to a citation for Elijah Abel having performed a baptism on his mission, but I couldn't find it (probably a user error on my part). Does anyone know where that evidence is?

Priesthood ban source material.pdf

Edited January 31, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

On 1/29/2016 at 4:18 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, where are those claimed quotes?  Several are tendentious or false at best (for example, the Book of Mormon on dark skin, the descendants of Cain, etc.).  

This is one of the silliest apologetic approaches to mitigating the effects and existence of the priesthood ban. Claiming that the numerous Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, JST, etc. passages dealing with the curse of dark skin don't actually mean a literal dark skin, but rather, an allegorical spiritual darkness, is absurd and a delight to enemies of the Church. It makes us look like the caricature of "Mopologetics." And these scriptures (provided through Joseph Smith) are rejected out of hand ("tendentious and false at best") as having no bearing on what Joseph Smith taught and believed. 

I'm getting the feeling that some people would love nothing more than to have these passages, or maybe whole books, removed from the canon because they are so embarrassed by them. 

[rongo]

On 1/30/2016 at 2:26 AM, canard78 said:

So when prophets spoke, on record, about the reasons for the ban, they were not inspired?

No, and you'll never hear me say that. I believe that when prophets spoke about the ban, they were inspired. I think it's obvious that the pre-existence impacts the 2nd estate in many ways, of which race is only a small part (i.e., station in life, opportunities, responsibilities, etc.) I am glad that the essays leave it open to people as to whether or not they believe the ban was the will of God. I don't agree with or like that the essays reject the explanations for the ban. I think it's a PC PR move to mitigate effects (perceived and real) from the historical ban (now almost 40 years ago). I also don't like that something like this was put forth in an anonymous essay --- obviously out of PR considerations. I think that something like this should have the FP/Q15's names attached --- like with the Proclamation on the Family.

This is an interesting comparison. People who are unhappy with the language of the Proclamation emphasize that it hasn't been canonized, and they look for a time when the Church moves in a different direction, allowing, countenancing, and embracing gay marriage as within the law of chastity. This, even though it was a joint proclamation of the FP/Q15. But always, it is emphasized that the Proclamation isn't scripture.

Can't the same logic be applied to these anonymous essays?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 I think it's obvious that the pre-existence impacts the 2nd estate in many ways, of which race is only a small part (i.e., station in life, opportunities, responsibilities, etc.)

A true and scriptural principle.  Of course the pre-existence impacts the lives we are given here.  How could it not?

The idea that everyone is born exactly equal is a false one.  However the Savior also taught clearly that our lives here are not punishment for premortal sins.

[Calm]

http://www.blacklds.org/kinney

[rongo]

Wow. Very interesting, Calm! Thanks for posting that. 

 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The idea that everyone is born exactly equal is a false one.  However the Savior also taught clearly that our lives here are not punishment for premortal sins.

It's not so much punishment (after all, everybody that came to earth kept their first estate, so the most important test was passed by everyone who receives a body) as it is progression. We all progressed at different rates in the pre-existence, just like we all progress at different rates here on earth, just like we will progress at different rates in the hereafter. Assignments, opportunities, responsibilities, etc. on differ based on progression at prior levels.

[Bobbieaware]

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's not so much punishment (after all, everybody that came to earth kept their first estate, so the most important test was passed by everyone who receives a body) as it is progression. We all progressed at different rates in the pre-existence, just like we all progress at different rates here on earth, just like we will progress at different rates in the hereafter. Assignments, opportunities, responsibilities, etc. on differ based on progression at prior levels.

Direct hit on the center of the bullseye!

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

This is one of the silliest apologetic approaches to mitigating the effects and existence of the priesthood ban. Claiming that the numerous Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, JST, etc. passages dealing with the curse of dark skin don't actually mean a literal dark skin, but rather, an allegorical spiritual darkness, is absurd and a delight to enemies of the Church. It makes us look like the caricature of "Mopologetics." And these scriptures (provided through Joseph Smith) are rejected out of hand ("tendentious and false at best") as having no bearing on what Joseph Smith taught and believed. 

I'm getting the feeling that some people would love nothing more than to have these passages, or maybe whole books, removed from the canon because they are so embarrassed by them. 

So you interpret Psalm 51:7, "I shall be whiter than snow," literally as skin color, and the same for Daniel 12:10, "Many shall be purified, and made white," or Lam 4:7-8, “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:  Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick,” or Songs 1:5-6, "I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me," etc.

Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of citing a good source which makes the case which you defend here.  I have taken a careful look, as have others, and find no basis for your false claims.

This matter was previously discussed in detail here on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57384 the hill cumorah/page__st__20 , and by Brant Gardner, AIf Lamanites were black, why didn=t anyone notice?@ FairBlog, May 21, 2012, online at http://www.fairblog.org/2012/05/21/if‑lamanites‑were‑black‑why‑didnt‑anyone‑notice/ .

Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015), 154-164.

As Charles Carnevale said on Mormon Stories on January 5, 2012 at 7:15 pm online at http://mormonstories.org/307-311-translating-the-book-of-mormon-with-brant-gardner/ , re skin color (pigmentation) in the Book of Mormon: 

Quote

What Brant says made sense to me especially considering what happens here in Argentina and some other  latin american countries.

For example, people who live in shanty towns, or ‘villas’ , are generally the same race as working class people however they are universally referred to as “Negros” -even though they aren’t African at all. They are called ‘negros’, in a derogatory way, because of cultural biases and the fact that they don’t have access to running water and usually work in the sun all day so their skin is darker than the average working class person. 

However, once they leave the shanty towns and start having access to running water and showers etc, they soon become like most working class people who are mainly italian and spanish decent. Then they are racially white southern european race but people will simply refer to them as white.

So, in a way, they become now “white and delitesome’ as the BoM states but all they have done is left a shanty town, obtained access to running water and modern facilities, like washing machines etc, but they haven’t changed pigmentation or race per sa just changed their social environmnet and living standards.

Maybe that is what the BoM, and Brant, was trying to get to, ie, not a change in race or pigmentation but in living standards which simply result in a ‘becoming white and delighsome’ stage once you have access to better facilities. In BoM itmes it meant going from Lamanite culture of just a rag around their privates, in the bush all day, under the sun etc etc to living in a city which was, relatively speaking, modern and had baths and clean running water through canals and that.

Hugh Nibley said in his Lehi in the Desert, Collected Works 5:74,

Quote

The statement that "God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21) describes the result, not the method, which is described elsewhere. Thus we are told (Alma 3:13, 14, 18) that while the fallen people "set the mark upon themselves," it was none the less God who was marking them: "I will set a mark upon them," etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" (Alma 3:18). Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually place upon themselves. The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by "whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites" (Alma 3:10); Alma moreover defines a Nephite as anyone observing "the tradition of their fathers" (Alma 3:11). Which makes the difference between Nephite and Lamanite a cultural, not a racial, one. Does this also apply to the dark skin? Note that the dark skin is never mentioned alone but always as attending a generally depraved way of life, which also is described as the direct result of the curse. When the Lamanites become "white" again, it is by living among the Nephites as Nephites, i.e., adopting the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:15-16).

And as John L. Sorenson has said:

Quote

The dark skin attributed to the Lamanites has been interpreted by some readers of the Book of Mormon as indicating that Laman, Lemuel, and those of Ishmael's family had mixed with "others" bearing darker pigmentation. The problem with that view is that the first mention of it is by Nephi himself (2 Nephi 5:21) shortly after the initial split in Lehi's group. The abruptness of the appearance of this "mark" upon the Lamanites cannot be reconciled with genetic mixing with a resident population for that would have required at least a generation to become evident in skin coloring.  Again, near the time of Christ those Lamanites "who had united with the Nephites" had the curse "taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15). The idea that those changes had a genetic basis is not sustainable. It is indeed possible that "others" who, we have seen, must have been nearby, were more heavily pigmented than the Nephites and they may have mixed with the Lamanites, but we cannot confirm this from statements in the record.@  B  Sorenson, AWhen Lehi's Party Arrive in the Land, Did They Find Others There?@ Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 1 (Fall 1992):1-34.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 30/1/2016 at 8:47 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 through the time of McKay's death in 1970:

'... We could see that that he was very much distressed. He said, "I've had it! I'm not going to do it again!" Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro. I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone"'.

I was thinking about this account again yesterday morning whilst getting ready for church, and it made me think once more about the impacts that the Saints have on their prophets ... and the binds into which we can sometimes place them. When I was studying in America, Kenneth Godfrey once related to our Institute class a conversation he'd had with Marion G. Romney when he'd driven to Salt Lake City to pick up Pres. Romney for a visit to the stake over which Bro. Godfrey then presided. Pres. Romney mentioned being called in to Pres. Heber J. Grant's office many decades earlier and asked to do a (for him) very difficult thing. In explaining his request to the future apostle, Pres. Grant told him that he had received very clear revelation on this matter, having seen in vision the outcome to be avoided. When the young Romney asked why, if the Church president was in receipt of such revelation, he hadn't chosen to share it with members at large, Pres. Grant said that he didn't dare. The Saints, he said, had brought down cursings upon their heads when they ignored his impassioned pleas re the repeal of Prohibition, and he was certain that they would ignore him yet again, and he simply didn't want to be the cause of adding to those cursings.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you interpret Psalm 51:7, "I shall be whiter than snow," literally as skin color, and the same for Daniel 12:10, "Many shall be purified, and made white," or Lam 4:7-8, “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:  Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick,” or Songs 1:5-6, "I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me," etc.

Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of citing a good source which makes the case which you defend here.  I have taken a careful look, as have others, and find no basis for your false claims.

 

Sorry, but it's quite a stretch to liken the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding "marks" and "blackness" with obvious poetry and

The Book of Mormon is pretty clear about what is being described (which is why it has been understood to be describing actual skin color for all these years).  For example, look at Alma 5.  Can you explain how this makes sense from a metaphorical view?

 

Quote

Alma 3

4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

 

 

Sometimes the words mean what they say, even if we don't want them to...

 

Quote

 

 

The people who followed Nephi obeyed God. They worked hard and were blessed. Nephi taught his people to build with wood and metal. They built a beautiful temple.

 

Laman and Lemuel’s followers called themselves Lamanites. They became a dark-skinned people. God cursed them because of their wickedness.

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-stories/chapter-9-a-new-home-in-the-promised-land?lang=eng

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by cinepro

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but it's quite a stretch to liken the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding "marks" and "blackness" with obvious poetry and

The Book of Mormon is pretty clear about what is being described (which is why it has been understood to be describing actual skin color for all these years).  For example, look at Alma 5.  Can you explain how this makes sense from a metaphorical view?

 

It's not a stretch, it takes a paradigm switch is all. Allowing a congruent reading between all symbolic terms including, as you point to, the BoM, JST etc (p.s. the book of Abraham doesn't have one reference of blackness at all...you're probably thinking the book of Moses). In short instead of allowing our modern sense (last 2-300 years from a western perspective) of the terms blackness to define it, we allow the scriptures themselves to define blackness. At least that's how I did it and I used to also think this view was just denying the obvious. when you do so, you'll note that several terms are used interchangeably attached to darkness/blackness/filthiness...it includes veil, countenance, garments, cloud, and scales. I have a hard time seeing it the way I used to now. It makes less sense. For Alma 3, for example, this mark and blackness is supposed to be immediately removable through repentance. It's there forever and a day...unless they repent (v 14). Last time I checked no one's skin tone changes with repentance (unless we just all repent more during the winter). When it's read as immediate removal, the darkness is removed at least 3 times...only once is this removal have a term "skin" tied to it.

But I can't convince you....I remember someone bring this up years ago and I thought it was ridiculous. I decided later to study it up and just see what would the scriptures look like if it could be read any other way and what would that look like. Turns out I could, it made more sense, and tied all books of scripture together far better.     

 

Quote

Sometimes the words mean what they say, even if we don't want them to...

 

I really doubt a children's book from the 90's is all that informative to begin with....I shouldn't be surprised that our cultural interpretation would fit common readings that have been in place as a dominant view derived from centuries old expectations. I'd counter by pointing out that the most recent version of actual LDS scripture removed any italics summaries that honed in on dark skin phrasing and the disavowal found in the gospel topics page. That seems far more pertinent then an old school picture book.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 1, 2016 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm getting the feeling that some people would love nothing more than to have these passages, or maybe whole books, removed from the canon because they are so embarrassed by them. 

I won't answer the rest, since I think RFS was pretty comprehensive on that note....but I wanted to say as someone who does read the passages as mentioned, I'm not in the least embarrassed or uncomfortable with the passages/books. I literally read them differently. Which means I see them in completely different light. Which means there's not much to be embarrassed by in the first place and I would hate so see them removed.

With luc,

BD  

Edited February 1, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but it's quite a stretch to liken the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding "marks" and "blackness" with obvious poetry and

The Book of Mormon is pretty clear about what is being described (which is why it has been understood to be describing actual skin color for all these years).  For example, look at Alma 5.  Can you explain how this makes sense from a metaphorical view?

Sometimes the words mean what they say, even if we don't want them to...

I prefer the scholarly approach, in which no a priori views are taken, and in which the text is allowed to speak for itself -- rather than be governed by folklore and traditional assumptions, as happened in the deep South in order to justify slavery and mistreatment of blacks (black women were raped regularly without repercussion, and black men could be mutilated or lynched on a mere whim, which somehow had to be justified by both church and state).  Nibley, in his cogent appraisal (cited above), did not rely on poetry:

Quote

The statement that "God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21) describes the result, not the method, which is described elsewhere. Thus we are told (Alma 3:13, 14, 18) that while the fallen people "set the mark upon themselves," it was none the less God who was marking them: "I will set a mark upon them," etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" (Alma 3:18). Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually place upon themselves. The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by "whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites" (Alma 3:10); Alma moreover defines a Nephite as anyone observing "the tradition of their fathers" (Alma 3:11). Which makes the difference between Nephite and Lamanite a cultural, not a racial, one. Does this also apply to the dark skin? Note that the dark skin is never mentioned alone but always as attending a generally depraved way of life, which also is described as the direct result of the curse. When the Lamanites become "white" again, it is by living among the Nephites as Nephites, i.e., adopting the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:15-16).

Yes, it is quite a stretch to rely on scholarship rather than shopworn and hackneyed notions about race, but it is time to jettison those tired, old concepts, and replace them with a close reading of the text.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

It's not so much punishment (after all, everybody that came to earth kept their first estate, so the most important test was passed by everyone who receives a body) as it is progression. We all progressed at different rates in the pre-existence, just like we all progress at different rates here on earth, just like we will progress at different rates in the hereafter. Assignments, opportunities, responsibilities, etc. on differ based on progression at prior levels.

That sounds suspiciously like the now discredited (and racist) view that certain people with dark skin were not as "valiant" in the pre-existence, which the Brethren have declared is false doctrine.

[cinepro]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I prefer the scholarly approach, in which no a priori views are taken, and in which the text is allowed to speak for itself -- rather than be governed by folklore and traditional assumptions, as happened in the deep South in order to justify slavery and mistreatment of blacks (black women were raped regularly without repercussion, and black men could be mutilated or lynched on a mere whim, which somehow had to be justified by both church and state).  Nibley, in his cogent appraisal (cited above), did not rely on poetry:

Yes,

it is quite a stretch to rely on scholarship rather than shopworn and hackneyed notions about race, but it is time to jettison those tired, old concepts, and replace them with a close reading of the text.

 

So when this text speaks, what does it say to you?

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

 

The text seems to be saying that the "mark" had the following characteristics:

a) it was involuntarily given by God (they didn't choose it)

b) it was evident in their "seed" (i.e. descendants)

c) it was visible to other populations (to help avoid intermixing)

d) the mark was on their "skins", and it involved their skins being "dark"

Do you understand that to be saying that the actual skin (i.e. dermis) of Laman and Lemuel and those who joined with them was made a different, darker color, and that it was genetically passed down to their descendants?  If not, what is it saying to you?

I can understand allegorical usage and viewing things through a different paradigm.  But if the only change to the paradigm is "I really, really want it to not be saying what it obviously says", you'll have to understand if others remain skeptical of your alternate reading.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

So when this text speaks, what does it say to you?

 

 

 

The text seems to be saying that the "mark" had the following characteristics:

a) it was involuntarily given by God (they didn't choose it)

b) it was evident in their "seed" (i.e. descendants)

c) it was visible to other populations (to help avoid intermixing)

d) the mark was on their "skins", and it involved their skins being "dark"

Do you understand that to be saying that the actual skin (i.e. dermis) of Laman and Lemuel and those who joined with them was made a different, darker color, and that it was genetically passed down to their descendants?  If not, what is it saying to you?

I can understand allegorical usage and viewing things through a different paradigm.  But if the only change to the paradigm is "I really, really want it to not be saying what it obviously says", you'll have to understand if others remain skeptical of your alternate reading.

To me it's clear that the author was very likely referring to skin. That makes sense given the 19th century context. However, it is appropriate to reinterpret scripture in light of greater wisdom gained with the passage of time.