Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[rongo]

12 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...

Exactly my thoughts. Robert F. Smith's, and others like him who extol the "scholarly paradigm" (read: allegorization), method of making plain references to skin color denote metaphorical references, reminds me of B.H. Roberts's response to Reverend van der Donckt. Van der Donckt had insisted that Mormons are forced to interpret poetic passages in the Bible literally because they interpret anthropomorphic passages literally --- with obvious absurd results. Roberts responded:

Has not the Reverend gentleman placed for comparison here the most dissimilar passages that perhaps could be found in the whole Bible? Yet, he insists that the prose passages from Genesis must be regarded as equally figurative with David's poetry . . . Further remarks on this head are not necessary. One is under no obligation to seriously discuss nonsense"  ("The Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-van der Donckt Discussion," [Salt Lake: Signature, 1998], pp. 90-91).

Robert F. Smith wrote:

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

A plain reading of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses text, in context, by anybody not seeking to spin the passages into a "scholarly paradigm" yields the same results that it has up until the modern era, where some find it necessary to explain them away. In a similar vein with trying to explain away horses as people riding, farming with, and hitching chariots to tapirs. 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Where have the Brethren declared that? In the anonymous essay? Their names aren't even attached like they are with the Proclamation (by design), but it's certain that they didn't write it. There is indirect, passive corporate endorsement by the Brethren, because the essay is on the Church web site, but the Brethren are conspicuously avoiding being linked to the essays on controversial topics. This gives plausible deniability, if needed at a later date.

Do we know who wrote the text for the essay on the priesthood ban?

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 11:20 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Hi, Robert.

It is not that I attribute infallibility to the prophets.

It is that they attribute it to themselves.

And encourage the members to attribute it to themselves.

When making many of my comments, I am doing it through the lens of LDS Church teachings, some of which I may not personally agree with.

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 11:25 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

And yet, was President McKay not a member of the First Presidency in 1949 when he signed the following?

 

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

[Buckeye]

On 1/31/2016 at 10:11 AM, 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. 

You're spot on that the many of these passages must be abused of all natural understanding in order to be taken out of the context of skin color. To me, the BOA and BOM and just as full as racism as the OT is full of genocide. I'm not in the camp of those wanting to remove the racism - any more than we should remove the genocide. But I would like explicit doctrine taught that these scriptures are wrong and not to be followed. We can condemn bad teachings and still hold up our ancestors who struggled (with varying degrees of success) to rid themselves of those bad teachings and provide the better world we now enjoy.

[Bobbieaware]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I'm wondering if in the context of this discussion the words 'discredited' and 'disavowed' really mean the same thing (the word disavowed is the one used in the essay)? In law enforcement and in the law, all sorts of formerly held points of evidence are disavowed (put on the shelf, as it were) all the time, only to be "reavowed" (placed back in evidence) when further verifiable light and knowledge confirm that that which had been disavowed because of lack of evidence actually turnes out to be true. The word disavow has many shades of intensity meaning and I believe it is for this very reason it was carefully chosen for use in the essay. For your consideration, what follows is an example of the use of the word disavow that does not refere to an outright repudiation or total rejection of LDS beliefs. It's from Terryl Givens 2013 book, A Viper on the Hearth."

"Mormonism’s most inflammatory doctrines were revealed late in Smith’s career (his teachings on the plurality of gods came only months before his death in 1844) or were in fact disavowed until the saints were presumably safe in their Utah exile (where polygamy was first publicly acknowledged in 1852)." 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Clarity

[Buckeye]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And yet, was President McKay not a member of the First Presidency in 1949 when he signed the following?

 

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

 

Greg Prince's McKay biography sheds a lot of great information on President McKay's transitions on the racial ban. It left me with a great respect for the man. Granted, he didn't live long enough to enact the 1978 change, but he wrestled strenuously (both personally and with his brethren) to rid himself of the false teachings he had been given and yet also maintain his ties to those who had taught him. His example, while no where close to the Savior's, shows me a true expiatorial work. President Kimball's life shows similar work. Neither of these men were close to perfect. And they didn't fix all poor teachings they'd been given. But they certainly did more to make the world better than I have done in my few years.

[CV75]

I think if people think it was of man and a mistake, that is their reality and they should apply the Gospel to forgive and move on. If people think it was of God, that is their reality and they need to stay current in that belief, sustain the changes and move on. There are statements about disavowed theories and condemnation of racism which should be heeded and sustained, and reason to move on. If people don't know, I think that calls for faith in the Lord and His servants, especially those of our present day. In any case, it is presumptuous to impose any one conclusion about the past as if the knew -- whether it was of God or of man -- on anyone.

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think if people think it was of man and a mistake, that is their reality and they should apply the Gospel to forgive and move on.

Although what you suggest is good advice, no doubt, it does nothing to address the elephant in the living room--If LDS leadership was so horribly wrong about this racist doctrine, what else might they be wrong about?

And how would we know?

[Buckeye]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

... In any case, it is presumptuous to impose any one conclusion about the past as if the knew -- whether it was of God or of man -- on anyone.

So all those claims about knowing that Joseph saw God, that Christ has risen, and so forth ... what do we do with that presumptuousness?

 

[consiglieri]

On another note, before anybody else gives me a reputation point, I want to celebrate my current and appropriate score of 666.

 

You may continue the discussion.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Although what you suggest is good advice, no doubt, it does nothing to address the elephant in the living room--If LDS leadership was so horribly wrong about this racist doctrine, what else might they be wrong about?

And how would we know?

No, the real elephant in the room is "what do we do if we do believe the LDS leadership is wrong on something".
I would still go with Brigham Young's suggestion:

• “I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

  It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God’s servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.”

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

But I would like explicit doctrine taught that these scriptures are wrong and not to be followed. We can condemn bad teachings and still hold up our ancestors who struggled (with varying degrees of success) to rid themselves of those bad teachings and provide the better world we now enjoy.

That's a pretty tough needle to thread because there is no avoiding tumbling down the slippery slope. How can we "condemn/rid ourselves of bad teachings" or "teach explicit doctrine that these scriptures are wrong?" It's one thing to disavow past teachings; it's quite another when they're in the Standard Works. Removing from the canon or explicitly disavowing parts of the Standard Works creates more problems than it solves. Much worse problems.

[Gray]

I'm happy to see that so many are unwilling to attribute the ban to God. Even though the idea of the ban always made me feel sick to my stomach, at one point I held the view that if it was affirmed to be of God by the FP, then it must be so. I encounter many members of the church now willing to say it was a mistake from the beginning. I don't think that was the case 10 years ago. 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, the real elephant in the room is "what do we do if we do believe the LDS leadership is wrong on something".
I would still go with Brigham Young's suggestion:

• “I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

  It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God’s servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.”

In this case you must evaluate what you consider to be more important - obedience or choosing the right. 

[consiglieri]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, the real elephant in the room is "what do we do if we do believe the LDS leadership is wrong on something".
I would still go with Brigham Young's suggestion:

• “I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

  It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God’s servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.”

I tend to suspect arguments that end up saying the prophet is right even when he's wrong.

Edited February 1, 2016 by consiglieri

[Buckeye]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's a pretty tough needle to thread because there is no avoiding tumbling down the slippery slope. How can we "condemn/rid ourselves of bad teachings" or "teach explicit doctrine that these scriptures are wrong?" It's one thing to disavow past teachings; it's quite another when they're in the Standard Works. Removing from the canon or explicitly disavowing parts of the Standard Works creates more problems than it solves. Much worse problems.

The Savior didn't think it too hard. How many times did he quote the lower law and say "but I say unto you ..."? 

And what's the alternative? Embrace genocide and racism because they're canonical? 

[Buckeye]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm happy to see that so many are unwilling to attribute the ban to God. Even though the idea of the ban always made me feel sick to my stomach, at one point I held the view that if it was affirmed to be of God by the FP, then it must be so. I encounter many members of the church now willing to say it was a mistake from the beginning. I don't think that was the case 10 years ago. 

With the latitude the church currently gives members on the issue - basically members can believe what they want - in another 10 years there will only be a small minority who cling to the "from God" view. Death has a way of cleansing out the crap (speaking of views, not people).

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Buckeye

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I tend to suspect arguments that end up saying the prophet is right even when he's wrong.

The quote isn't about whether the prophet is right or wrong.  It's about what WE are supposed to do about it.

Goodness knows I've expressed my disagreements with the Church leaders on this board MANY times.
I think the Church HAS been led astray on some things.  But I am perfectly willing to believe that it is part of God's plan to let it happen.  Or even to make it happen.
And yet I stay a member.  Because that's the correct principle.  To let God steer his own ship, even if he wants it to hit an iceberg.  That's his choice.

Edited February 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

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

Quote

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.

If you don't read Nibley, along with the other sources I provided, then of course you will always read the surface text as you wish to, instead of considering the overall context (as Nibley and other scholars do).  A close reading of the text means a very careful and contextual reading in full awareness of the scholarly tradition of reading deeply.  Those familiar with biblical and other ancient texts already know how even ordinary, human events and actions are attributed to God or the gods, which may seem silly to those who are not attentive to ancient traditions.

Nibley and other scholars may annoy you with their effort to find out what the intent of the writers and editors really was, and you can attribute that to special pleading or illogic by those horrible "apologists," but then you are also going to have to include nearly the entire field of ancient literary studies or philology as built upon a commitment to the same type of anti-scholarly special pleading -- a field which is nearly all non-Mormon and uninterested in the Book of Mormon.  Taking texts in isolation or out of overall context is just wrong, cinepro.

All I have seen from you so far on this subject, anyhow, is an unwillingness to consider the full range of references in the Book of Mormon (or in the remainder of the Mormon Canon), but a simultaneously desire to tar and feather Joseph yet again.  Joe just has to be guilty, no matter what.  Let's get him.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Although what you suggest is good advice, no doubt, it does nothing to address the elephant in the living room--If LDS leadership was so horribly wrong about this racist doctrine, what else might they be wrong about?

And how would we know?

I’m not sure why that would necessarily be an elephant – it isn’t for me. I don’t think anyone’s being wrong on one thing makes him wrong on the next. Neither do I think that God’s revealing one thing to a man means He reveals the next thing to him. I try to live in the present, a standpoint from which I can view things in the past, present and future with an eye of faith, making it possible to take the high road in forgiving and trusting, depending how I view things like the ban. Unfamiliarity and faith are as much a factor to my happiness as experience and knowledge—they all work together with practice.

So, if the elephant is an “if” and a “might,” there isn’t anything to actually know, so that’s a fool’s quest, and the question, the “if” and the “might” are only as big as one makes them, and their importance is inversely proportional in magnitude to the desire to know.

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

So all those claims about knowing that Joseph saw God, that Christ has risen, and so forth ... what do we do with that presumptuousness?

I was talking about the ban. I don’t have a testimony of the ban; I never felt the need to have one. There are no "claims" about its source being made by the Church. It is especially irrelevant now, having been removed (see my remarks above about living in the present).

Those other things, yes, I have a testimony of them. A testimony is not presumptuous, and I’m not so presumptuous as to try to impose my testimony of those other things on anyone else.

It would be presumptuous to take a position on the source of the ban and try to impose it on others. That is why the essay is written with the perspective and tone that it is.

[Buckeye]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was talking about the ban. I don’t have a testimony of the ban; I never felt the need to have one. There are no "claims" about its source being made by the Church. It is especially irrelevant now, having been removed (see my remarks above about living in the present).

Those other things, yes, I have a testimony of them. A testimony is not presumptuous, and I’m not so presumptuous as to try to impose my testimony of those other things on anyone else.

It would be presumptuous to take a position on the source of the ban and try to impose it on others. That is why the essay is written with the perspective and tone that it is.

That's fair. I must have missed something in the thread. What "essay" are you talking about? The LDS.org essay about the ban? Are you suggesting the church's essay is presumptuous? And are you open to the possibility that some people have a just as strong a testimony against the ban being from God as you do that BOM comes from God? I get the notion that we should not try to "impose our testimony" on others. But couldn't a member have a testimony against the ban being divine?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Exactly my thoughts. Robert F. Smith's, and others like him who extol the "scholarly paradigm" (read: allegorization), method of making plain references to skin color denote metaphorical references, reminds me of B.H. Roberts's response to Reverend van der Donckt. Van der Donckt had insisted that Mormons are forced to interpret poetic passages in the Bible literally because they interpret anthropomorphic passages literally --- with obvious absurd results. Roberts responded:

I still don't see why you and others insist on taking Scriptural statements out of context.  Is this your version of scholarship?  I thought Nibley's analysis right on target (written over a half century ago) from any fair-minded viewpoint, but it goes down hard for some people.  I suggest that you read non-Mormon Robert Alter, who said:

Quote

“History is far more intimately related to fiction than we have been accustomed to assume.”- Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative

What could he have meant by that?  What would a yokel say?  What would a scholar say?

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

A plain reading of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses text, in context, by anybody not seeking to spin the passages into a "scholarly paradigm" yields the same results that it has up until the modern era, where some find it necessary to explain them away. In a similar vein with trying to explain away horses as people riding, farming with, and hitching chariots to tapirs. 

So the Conquistadores were fools to have referred to the tapirs they saw as caballos ("horses")?  And scholars are just a pack of fools who attempt to read in broad context?  How much more wrongo can they be, rongo?  Have you even tried to address the real issues?

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you don't read Nibley, along with the other sources I provided, then of course you will always read the surface text as you wish to, instead of considering the overall context (as Nibley and other scholars do).  A close reading of the text means a very careful and contextual reading in full awareness of the scholarly tradition of reading deeply.  Those familiar with biblical and other ancient texts already know how even ordinary, human events and actions are attributed to God or the gods, which may seem silly to those who are not attentive to ancient traditions.

Nibley and other scholars may annoy you with their effort to find out what the intent of the writers and editors really was, and you can attribute that to special pleading or illogic by those horrible "apologists," but then you are also going to have to include nearly the entire field of ancient literary studies or philology as built upon a commitment to the same type of anti-scholarly special pleading -- a field which is nearly all non-Mormon and uninterested in the Book of Mormon.  Taking texts in isolation or out of overall context is just wrong, cinepro.

All I have seen from you so far on this subject, anyhow, is an unwillingness to consider the full range of references in the Book of Mormon (or in the remainder of the Mormon Canon), but a simultaneously desire to tar and feather Joseph yet again.  Joe just has to be guilty, no matter what.  Let's get him.

 

You still haven't shown how any alternate reading of Alma 3 makes sense.  The text is plainly describing a visible, hereditary change in the color of skin (dermis).  If you are arguing for an alternate reading, then please explain how it fits at all.  The argument that the mark is a voluntary one ignores that the voluntary mark is clearly described as the red foreheads that they mark themselves with:

 

 

Quote

 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.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/3?lang=eng

 

 

Then it describes the dark skin which is different, because this "mark" comes from God, and is hereditary and visible:

 

Quote

 

 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.

 

None of the quotes you provided even come close to providing an alternate explanation that makes sense according to what the text says.  There's too much specific detail there. 

Again, I can understand if you hate what it says and are desperate to find some way to pretend that it says something else.  I hate it just as much as you do.  But I don't hate it so much that I'm going to pretend that it says something else.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

To specifically address the Nibley quote, notice how he conflates the mark the Amlicites set upon themselves (which v.4 and 18 indicates is the red marking of the forehead) with the mark that God sets on them, which is described in v.6 as the darker skin that God sets upon the Lamanites (which is visible and hereditary):

 

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).

Edited February 1, 2016 by cinepro