Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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?

I’m referring to the Race and Priesthood essay on lds.org, and I tried to show how it is the opposite of presumptuous!

I’m as open to any possibility and probability as I am to faith and knowledge. That’s the easiest thing to do in the world. It requires no faith or effort to acknowledge that a member could have a testimony against the ban being divine. Some of the "From men" tallies in the survey might just be the result of such testimony. But the practicality of having a testimony of that which is not true, thereby having nothing to do anything with (and the possibilities are endless!) is beyond me, which is why, if one has such a testimony, it is better not to register anything more than his tally in a survey, and definitely not to go around imposing faulty conclusions, probabilities and possibilities (and other futile applications and substitutes for knowledge) onto others.

But the survey isn’t about testimony; it’s about answering an open question which isn’t relevant to the fundamental principles of our religion and its appendages since it’s about something from the past that doesn’t matter anymore by way of the latest revelation. This is one takeaway from the essay.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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

For the priesthood ban and its lifting to be considered analogous to Jesus fulfilling the law and instituting a higher law, the priesthood ban would have to have been God's will at the time. 

I agree with this 100% --- and I agree further that a higher law commenced in 1978. But this doesn't discount the lower law that was in place pre-1978, any more than Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses invalidated the Law of Moses at the time of the Law of Moses.

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

False dilemma. One can recognize that the priesthood ban was legitimate and God's will without "embracing" banning from priesthood and temple post-1978.

[rongo]

2 hours 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.  

As cinepro pointed out (and I don't think this point can be disputed), Nibley was just wrong on tying the Amilicites to the dark skin curse. I really like a lot of Nibley's stuff, but he laid some eggs, too, and this is one of them. The Amlicites were Nephites who marked themselves in the forehead with red to distinguish themselves. In the passages we are considering, God gives a curse of a dark skin. They are two different things, and Nibley conflated them. 

Nibley and other scholars may annoy you with their effort to find out what the intent of the writers and editors really was . . .  Taking texts in isolation or out of overall context is just wrong, cinepro.

That's an interesting thought. Are you arguing that Joseph Smith/Mormon's "original intent" was an allegorical/metaphorical "metaphysical darkness" meaning in these passages, and not racial skin color? Or, did he himself (and his contemporaries) read it in a "non-scholarly" manner?

[rongo]

.

[rongo]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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. 

No, but then I'm just a knuckle-dragging, uni-browed hayseed hick. I think you need to defend your (and Nibley's) claim that scriptural mention of a dark skin curse is simply another way of saying that these people marked themselves with color to set themselves apart. 

 

Quote

 

So the Conquistadores were fools to have referred to the tapirs they saw as caballos ("horses")?

No, loan-shifting, or cross-cultural onomastica, is a readily-observable phenomenon (e.g., hippopotamus/Nilpferd/"river horse", etc.). But arguing that all instances of horses, especially pulling chariots, as being tapirs, well, that's like your Amlicite example.

 

Quote

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?

That certainly doesn't sound very scholarly. 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by rongo

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

For the priesthood ban and its lifting to be considered analogous to Jesus fulfilling the law and instituting a higher law, the priesthood ban would have to have been God's will at the time. 

I agree with this 100% --- and I agree further that a higher law commenced in 1978. But this doesn't discount the lower law that was in place pre-1978, any more than Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses invalidated the Law of Moses at the time of the Law of Moses.

 

 

False dilemma. One can recognize that the priesthood ban was legitimate and God's will without "embracing" banning from priesthood and temple post-1978.

I think I may have a different definition of "God's will" than you. I'm open to God allowing a people to (collectively) receive a lower law because that's all they are willing to received. But for me, that's substantively different from suggesting that God wanted the ban. So I'm fine with a tolerant, patient God. But not with a one who would teach His children racism even though they were willing to receive a higher law. The 1978 change wasn't a result of God changing mind. It was a result of the church following the righteous example of the society around it and God patiently tolerating our collective foot-dragging. By creating and maintaining the ban, we damned some of God's children, but none more so than ourselves.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 I'm fine with a tolerant, patient God. But not with a one who would teach His children racism even though they were willing to receive a higher law.

The only way for that to be the case is for scripture to not be the word of God historically.
There are too many examples of God favoring races, condemning races, destroying races, blessing races, and cursing races in scripture for me to believe that God never judges according to race.

Now you could argue that these were "nations" or "tribes" and not "races" but I fail to see how that makes God's action any less offensive to those that cannot accept God judging entire groups instead of individuals.  The principle is the basically the same - an entire group/class that God favors less or more than another entire group/class.
It's a predominant theme in scripture.

[mfbukowski]

6 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?

That's the whole point, yet again.  "We" collectively would not because it is not an objective decision.  There is no way to objectively what God's will is for someone else so the only solution is praying about it and voting with our feet.  Some may be robots but that is not my problem.  And bringing up the same point every single post is just plain getting very old.

Not everyone is a fundamentalist.

This whole notion that one should not leave a church which one comes to  believe is "wrong" is a total mystery to me.  I have left several.

And to hang around and keep criticizing a point of view without a clue of pointing to something better is just a waste of time to me

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

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.

Well THAT is a problematic statement

If that was true, everyone here would agree with you that those are "LDS teachings".  Ever noticed that a lot of people here disagree with you?

How does that happen, oh Mr. LDS church spokesman?

[Buckeye]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The only way for that to be the case is for scripture to not be the word of God historically.
There are too many examples of God favoring races, condemning races, destroying races, blessing races, and cursing races in scripture for me to believe that God never judges according to race.

Now you could argue that these were "nations" or "tribes" and not "races" but I fail to see how that makes God's action any less offensive to those that cannot accept God judging entire groups instead of individuals.  The principle is the basically the same - an entire group/class that God favors less or more than another entire group/class.
It's a predominant theme in scripture.

It's a predominant theme in scripture because God is working with a predominantly crappy people. Note that I qualified my statement as God giving instructions to a people who "were willing to receive a higher law." King Benjamin said that man is lower than the dust. Why should we be surprised that the natural man is quick to draw lines based on skin color, tribes, ethnicity, or any other "ite"? You see a God who approves of placing others underneath oneself. I see a God who is eternally patient in waiting for us to get over ourselves. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Buckeye

[mfbukowski]

6 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?

And on the other hand, as I pointed out earlier, if we can't know they are wrong, we can't know they are right

So your point is self-contradictory

How do you know they were wrong?  Yes of course racism was wrong, but do you know what would have happened if the ban had never happened?  How can you prove that though "racist" it might have been the most expedient and tactically necessary for the church??

Would the church have been exterminated?  Would the course of the civil war been different?

And how would we know?

That silly argument cuts both ways.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It's a predominant theme in scripture because God is working with a predominantly crappy people. Note that I qualified my statement as God giving instructions to a people who "were willing to receive a higher law." King Benjamin said that man is lower than the dust. Why should we be surprised that the natural man is quick to draw lines based on skin color, tribes, ethnicity, or any other "ite"? You see a God who approves of placing others underneath oneself. I see a God who is eternally patient in waiting for us to get over ourselves.

I'm not as convinced God's actions are decided by the wickedness of the people.
God doesn't come down to our level.  True, God blesses and curses according to our worthiness.  But nothing we do can cause God to commit a sinful act such as some people consider the ones attributed to him in scripture to be.

If GOD draws the lines based on skin color, tribes, ethnicity or nation, blaming God's actions on mankind's crappiness seems an unlikely scenario.
Now, if God had said "I don't approve but do what you like" you might be able to make that argument.  The only other option I see for your argument would be to say that God in scripture isn't really God.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

Maybe it depends on your perspective, as with Brother Brigham, or as with any of the Israelites confronted by the strange and highly inappropriate actions of a prophet -- walking around naked for several years (Isa 20:2-4; cf. I Sam 19:24, II Sam 6:20, Micah 1:8), Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, walked with God, and was righteous & perfect – yet a drunkard? (Gen 6:8-9, 9:20-21), Ham saw his father Noah naked and therefore Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan with slavery? (Gen 9:21-27), can one called of God ever misbehave? can a man sent forth as a prophet or apostle fail to be perfect? (I Kings 13:1-32, Jona 1:3, 4:1-10, Mat 16:16-23, Acts 10 - 11, 15, Gal 2:11-14, James 5:17), especially David as a "prophet" (Acts 2:30, II Sm 23:2); or Moses (Nm 20:10-13, Dt 32:48-52), or Judas? (Matt 26:14,47, Mk 14:10, Lk 6:16), does God or his prophet demand harm to children? and have bears tear them to pieces? (II Kings 2:23-24), is it O.K. for David to murder Goliath by cutting off his head while unconscious? (I Sam 17:49-54), was it O.K. for Samuel to murder Agag? (I Sam 15:11,32-33), can a prophecy be untrue?  can a prophet lie? (II Kings 22:19-20, 23:29, II Chron 35:20-24 ), etc.

Shall I go on . . . ?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

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:

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

At least Sorenson took the time to deal with the genetics, which you ignore.  A scholar would address all the issues in one essay, rather than take each item piecemeal, as though that were an adequate explanation.  That may convince the hoi polloi, but is that really the price you want to pay to mount a successful attack?

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. 

I have no problem with specific detail, even though it doesn't necessarily tell us (in the absence of the other BofM texts) what we want it to -- without understanding what sort of culture we are dealing with, and how they understand matters of that kind very differently than we do.  In isolation, of course it would fit your preconceived desire, but it does not come to us in isolation -- something which you cannot admit.

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.

You admit to allowing hate to enter the discussion, and you attribute desperation of any who don't buy into your monomania, cinepro.  But, in so doing, you jettison centuries of scholarly achievement in reading texts for actual rather than pretended meaning.

 

[Michael Sanders]

Quote

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:

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

Not necessarily - there are alternate readings:

Read My Post #17 & 26 & 27

or more recently

On this board beginning here

Mike Sanders 

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[cinepro]

12 hours 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.

 

I'm not sure why you are making this out to be some personal projection on my part.  I don't "wish" that Alma 3 said something.  I'm merely citing what it does say, and asking if anyone can provide a plausible explanation other than the obvious, plain meaning of the words (which also fits the context) which the Church itself officially promoted for decades and decades. 

Heck, this article was even published in a BYU Symposiusm in 1989, and is currently found on the BYU Religious Studies Center website:

 

Quote

Desiring to inform and not offend, may I preface my remarks by acknowledging that in this day of ultrasensitivity to anything that smacks of racism, the idea that God might be color conscious, or that one’s pigmentation is an evidence of divine displeasure is understandably offensive to most people. Why there are different races making up the manifestly imperfect human family is known only to an all-wise God. But there are reasons; where the Lord is concerned, nothing happens by chance.

====================================================================================================

Symbolic of the withdrawal of the Spirit from their lives, a “skin of blackness” [2] came upon the rebellious Laman, Lemuel, their families, and those sons and daughters of Ishmael who chose to affiliate with them (2 Nephi 5:21). There can be no question but that their altered skin color was a miraculous act of God; it cannot be understood in purely metaphoric terms, nor as being nothing more than the natural consequence of prolonged exposure to the sun. Nephi was explicit that “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21; emphasis added). The prophet Jacob later spoke of how the Nephites hated the Lamanites “because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins,” and warned the immoral Nephites that unless they repented, the Lamanites’ “skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God” (Jacob 3:5, 8).

Mormon, writing some five hundred years later, said that “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” (Alma 3:6). Laman and Lemuel had not only sought to kill Nephi, but also their other brothers, Sam, Jacob and Joseph. Therefore “the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women” (Alma 3:7). Thus all who partook of the spirit of Laman and Lemuel partook of the spiritual and physical judgments which befell them. The darkened pigmentation of their skins became a dominant genetic trait that was inherited by their posterity from that time forth.

Respecting skin color, only in Alma is the word “mark” found in the Book of Mormon (Alma 3:6, 7, 10, 14–16). Mormon wrote that the Lord employed that term in telling Nephi three things: “Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them. . . . I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also. . . . I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed” (Alma 3:14–16).

(emphasis added)

The Lamanite Mark

 

 

 

This book is described thusly on the Religious Studies Center website:

 

Quote

 

Volume 3 in the Book of Mormon Symposium Series

In this volume, twenty-two scholars comment knowledgeably on a variety of themes evoked by the prophetic words of Isaiah, Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob as given in 2 Nephi. Contributors discuss doctrines of Christ such as repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Fall, the Atonement, hope, endurance, the name of Jesus Christ as revealed to the Nephites, and the Nephite diligence in teaching and transmitting the gospel. Comments on the early Nephite period deepen our appreciation for Nephi’s spiritual strength. Although many perspectives are offered here, its underlying purpose is to illumine, clarify, and reinforce the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

 

So don't try and make this out to be something that it isn't.  Everyone here can read what the Book of Mormons says, and nothing you've presented has done anything to argue that Alma 3 isn't describing exactly what it says it is. And I am simply making the same observation that Professor Turner (and so many other Church leaders and members) did, so any ulterior motives you ascribe to me must also be ascribed to them as well.  The only thing I'm guilty of is not pretending to love the Emperor's awesome new clothes.

Edited February 2, 2016 by cinepro

[BlueDreams]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

I don't think common assumptions is all that great of an argument or evidence. I remember that the idea of being marked by blackness as a sign of a curse was introduced to me  around the same time that I began to really study the scriptures. I still remember it because I was horrified. That such and idea vetted by anti's would actually come from my mother's mouth. I assumed it was false because it was so obviously racist to my 14-15 yr old self. That's when I began reading it. By then though I was already trained to read blackness as literal skin tone. Cain/ham-African connection seemed weak but you're right...I couldn't get around the BoM and some passages in the pogp. My modern training to distinguish races and differences largely by skin didn't help. 

So then I went through several potential theories to why would God curse a people and use skin tone as a sign of it. All of them ran into problems and in discrepancies sooner or later.

- this was a one time thing and and used it because of the prejudices the nephites had. Prob: why would God purposely enable a prejudice. And God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why doesn't repenting make me whiter. Or my native friends. Or my black friends/family. Skin tones followed genetics and sun exposure, not righteousness or intelligence or capacity to receive the gospel. 

- so then there was the idea that it was a symbol of intermixing with native populations that the nephites weren't a fan of without conversion so they did it slower. Problem: the curse was immediate and not solely to coming generations and the language would have to be bent anyways to make it work. 

Other problems mounted: why could they not find a lamanite among their majority nephites if their skin was darker? I stick out like a sore thumb in southern UT. Finding the brown person is really easy and everybody knows them. Why didn't the curse/mark get removed immediately when lamanites repented. Repentance is supposed to leave to immediate cleansing. Separating the mark and the curse seems to be a way to make us feel better about the race diffs, there's not a real difference in the verses that mention mark they use it interchangeably. Etc. 

Then there was the inherent knowledge that my features were equally divine to that of a full white person and to that of the darkest hues. I didn't feel marked with a curse or by a curse. I didn't feel like my skin needed fixing to be beautiful. I would never want my features to Change to something not me. And it wasn't a great deterrent to mixing. People found me attractive and many would exotixcize me. The only people who would hesitate had either social pressure, were from very very white circles, or had quotes about difficulties of interracial marriages in their head. I also knew even when dark skin was openly reviled it didn't stop people from mixing ever.

etc.

by then I didn't know how to read these verses anymore. I didn't like them, they'd sour my experience of scriptures when I'd read them. I'd read them still because I assumed one day the answer would just come and I'd be able to read and see all these disceepancies melt away. They never did. 

Until I was introduced to a slightly different perspective about it. It opened up the possibility that I may be asking the wrong question. Up to then I was asking why and how God cursed people with black skin/blackness to make them repugnant. I decided to ask, how would scriptures define blackness/whiteness by themselves? And subsequently Can it be different from the way we, in our modern day see it? The answer was yes and yes. And that's when the discrepancies finally melted away.

I'm not a scholar. The video that introduced me to the idea wasn't either. I haven't read any of the articles RFS has cited. I've vaguely heard of the ideas mentioned from what he's mentioned. And yet I don't read them as you've mentioned. i don't need a scholar to tell me this like I would a scholar to bring up tapirs. 

I know it's hard to see because we've been socialized to see something there. In JS' day skin tone and racial differences determined your place in life with few exceptions. They were pertinent and often determined goodness/acceptability. The interpretation given made perfect sense. Today that interpretation is a legacy we've received. Handed down, largely unquestioned to most. The disctepancy managed by really holely ideas to make the racism less severe (p.s it doesn't work). The only reason it didn't sit was because it went against my existence. My experience forced a chronic dissonance with these verses. For a number of my minority friends, letting go of this interpretation is easy. I remember showing my study notes to my Latina roommate and it wasn't met with hesitation or doubt...it was "YES." It confirmed what was always in her heart. Again, she had no scholarly background. I don't say this to shame or accuse you, I say it to point out that these interpretations forged in a white-dominated American society obsessed with racial/phenotypic distinctions whose legacy we still have, aren't the only way to see it. It is obvious in that socially derived system. But if you change one's stance and experience, the obviousness disappears and the holes become apparent and persistent.

 

For clarity's sake- my perspective is that the scriptures/passages mentioned are largely true...their interpretation is where things fell apart.

 

with luv,

bd

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by BlueDreams

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't think common assumptions is all that great of an argument or evidence. I remember that the idea of being marked by blackness as a sign of a curse was introduced to me  around the same time that I began to really study the scriptures. I still remember it because I was horrified. That such and idea vetted by anti's would actually come from my mother's mouth. I assumed it was false because it was so obviously racist to my 14-15 yr old self. That's when I began reading it. By then though I was already trained to read blackness as literal skin tone. Cain/ham-African connection seemed weak but you're right...I couldn't get around the BoM and some passages in the pogp. My modern training to distinguish races and differences largely by skin didn't help. 

So then I went through several potential theories to why would God curse a people and use skin tone as a sign of it. All of them ran into problems and in discrepancies sooner or later.

- this was a one time thing and and used it because of the prejudices the nephites had. Prob: why would God purposely enable a real prejudice. And God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why doesn't repenting make me whiter. Or my native friends. Or my black friends. Skin tones followed genetics and sun exposure, not righteousness or intelligence or capacity to receive the gospel. 

- so then there was it was a symbol of intermixing with native populations that the nephites weren't a fan of without conversion so they did it slower. Problem: the curse was immediate and the language would have to be bent anyways to make it work. 

Other problems mounted: why could they not find a lamanite among their majority nephites if their skin was darker. I stick out like a sore thumb in southern UT. Finding the brown person is really easy. Why didn't the curse/mark get removed immediately when lamanites repented. Repentance is supposed to leave to immediate cleansing. Separting the mark and the curse seems to be a way to make us feel better about the race diffs, there's not a real difference in the verses that mention mark they use it interchangeably. Etc. 

Then there was the inherent knowledge that my features were equally divine to that of a full white person and to that of the darkest hues. I didn't feel marked with a curse. I would never want my features to Change to something not me. And it was a terrible deterrent to mixing. People found me attractive and many would exotixcize me. I also know even when dark skin was reviled it stopped few from mixing ever.

etc.

by then I didn't know how to read these verses anymore. I didn't like them, they'd sour my experience of scriptures when I'd read them. I'd read them still because I assumed one day the answer would just come and I'd be able to read and see all these disceepancies melt away. They never did. 

Until I was introduced to a slightly different perspective about it. It opened up the possibility that I may be asking the wrong question. Up to then I was asking why and how God cursed people with black skin/blackness to make them repugnant. I decided to ask, how would scriptures define blackness/whiteness by themselves? And subsequently Can it be different from the way we, in our modern day see it? The answer was yes and yes. And that's when the discrepancies finally melted away.

I'm not a scholar. The video that introduced me to the idea wasn't either. I haven't read any of the articles RFS has cited. I've vaguely heard of the ideas mentioned from what he's mentioned. And yet I don't read them as you've mentioned. i don't need a scholar to tell me this like I would a scholar to bring up tapirs. 

I know it's hard to see because we've been socialized to see something there. In JS' day skin tone and racial differences determined your place in life with few exceptions. They were pertinent and often determined goodness/acceptability. The interpretation given made perfect sense. Today that interpretation is a legacy we've received. Handed down, largely unquestioned to most. The disctepancy managed by really holely ideas to make the racism less severe (p.s it doesn't work). The only reason it didn't sit was because it went against my existence. My experience forced a chronic dissonance with these verses. For a number of my minority friends, letting go of this interpretation is easy. I remember showing my study notes to my Latina roommate and it wasn't met with hesitation or doubt...it was "YES." It confirmed what was always in her heart. Again, she had no scholarly background. I don't say this to shame or accuse you, I say it to point out that these interpretations forged in a white-dominated American society obsessed with racial/phenotypic distinctions whose legacy we still have, aren't the only way to see it. It is obvious in that socially derived system. But if you change one's stance and experience, the obviousness disappears and the holes become apparent and persistent.

 

For clarity's sake- my perspective is that the scriptures/passages mentioned are largely true...their interpretation is where things fell apart.

 

with luv,

bd

 

This is all very true (and thanks for sharing and digging deep using your personal experience). Now, approaching 40 years after the ending of the priesthood ban, it is not an issue at all ---- except for people who have concerns, and then it is a very real issue. 

As far as the original topic of this thread (were the ban's origins from God?), and its corollary (did it originate with Joseph Smith, or is Brigham Young the only one under the bus?) ---- thank you for your perspective, too, that Restoration scriptures and their obvious plain reading play an inescapable role in the origin and perpetuation of the ban.

[BlueDreams]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is all very true (and thanks for sharing and digging deep using your personal experience). Now, approaching 40 years after the ending of the priesthood ban, it is not an issue at all ---- except for people who have concerns, and then it is a very real issue. 

As far as the original topic of this thread (were the ban's origins from God?), and its corollary (did it originate with Joseph Smith, or is Brigham Young the only one under the bus?) ---- thank you for your perspective, too, that Restoration scriptures and their obvious plain reading play an inescapable role in the origin and perpetuation of the ban.

Thanks rongo.  Your first line reminded me of another problem....the BoM was written for our day to convince us Jesus was the Christ. It never made sense why this was obviously highlighted and reiterated and not really have much pertinence to out time and even deter the work by justifying our prejudices. Then magically never apply post 1978. The way I read them now, they very much apply and they are pertinent in showing me the ways of Christ. 

I'm a little confused with the second part, though. I don't think the Restoration scriptures and their "obvious plain reading" played an inescapable role in the origin and perpetuation of the Ban. The curse of Ham and Cain are so convoluted and ridiculous that even my 15 yr old self noted that you have to make really big assumptions to make them work to say so (such as all decendents from africa come from the same line and those two lines never mixed ever with any other uncursed lines for thousands of years). In fact the JST interpretation of Ham's cursing lends greater credence to the black being a euphemism/metaphor/short-hand for something and NOT phenotypic. It states that a "veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among men" (JST Genesis 9:30)....which then links directly (linguistically speaking) to Moses 7:61 where the heavens are "darkened" and "a veil of darkness shall cover the earth" ...it also links to 56 and then 7:26, which gives it more definition as being led or overtaken by Satan ("he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness"). The plain reading of the restoration scriptures when it comes to Ham or Cain are so holely its like looking at swiss cheese when you try to overlay it with the ham/cain-african thing.  Personally I lay that squarely on the shoulders of racist interpretations of the Bible that were happening well before JS was even born to justify the slave trade and were more of a tradition at best than a truly scripturally derived belief. It went largely unquestioned or passively accepted by JS and then became codified into LDS practices during BY's time. 

I just wanted to clarify, in case you misunderstood me....If I misunderstood you, please feel free to clarify as well

 

With luv,

BD

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

I'm not sure why you are making this out to be some personal projection on my part.  I don't "wish" that Alma 3 said something.  I'm merely citing what it does say, and asking if anyone can provide a plausible explanation other than the obvious, plain meaning of the words (which also fits the context) which the Church itself officially promoted for decades and decades. 

Yes, and they were wrong for those decades and decades, for the same reason that you are wrong -- because you did not read the text carefully, all of it.  You chose proof texts which suited you, and ignored the rest.  You also ignored the scholarly discussions, as though they exhibited leprosy, and you do the same now.  As though Elder McConkie did not tell us to forget anything that he had said on the subject because he had spoken without knowledge or understanding.  His personal agenda had come a cropper.

Heck, this article was even published in a BYU Symposiusm in 1989, and is currently found on the BYU Religious Studies Center website:

Of course it was, and Rodney Turner was always a lightning rod for controversy on this topic, and he had a well-known apriori agenda, which you also ignore.

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

So don't try and make this out to be something that it isn't.  Everyone here can read what the Book of Mormons says, and nothing you've presented has done anything to argue that Alma 3 isn't describing exactly what it says it is. And I am simply making the same observation that Professor Turner (and so many other Church leaders and members) did, so any ulterior motives you ascribe to me must also be ascribed to them as well.  The only thing I'm guilty of is not pretending to love the Emperor's awesome new clothes.

Turner's notes give him away, not only in what he says but also in what he doesn't cite:  There is no learned discussion, but only a lawyer making his case, uninterested in the larger picture.  Were he sincere, he would at least come  to grips with Nibley and his other opponents.  It is not without considerable reason that Nibley insisted to one of his graduate assistants that he definitely not obtain an advanced degree from the BYU Dept of Religion.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Turner's notes give him away, not only in what he says but also in what he doesn't cite:  There is no learned discussion, but only a lawyer making his case, uninterested in the larger picture.  Were he sincere, he would at least come  to grips with Nibley and his other opponents.  It is not without considerable reason that Nibley insisted to one of his graduate assistants that he definitely not obtain an advanced degree from the BYU Dept of Religion.

I haven't ignored anything.  I fully understand, acknowledge and agree that different words are used in different ways throughout the scriptures.  I also think it's great that we can move beyond the idea God cursed people with a dark skin.  I certainly don't believe it actually happened that way.

But that still doesn't mean that the "text" doesn't say what it says.   Rodney Turner wasn't a lawyer, he was a scholar.  He taught classes on the scriptures at BYU for over 30 years, and had a PhD .  That may not be the kind of "scholar" you like, but that doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about.  And it's a little presumptuous to accuse him of being insincere.  I suspect he knew much more about Nibley than most other people, and just because he didn't agree with Nibley's re-interpretation of the issue doesn't mean he hadn't "come to grips" with it.  

But ultimately you have failed in the most important point: you still haven't explained how an alternate explanation for Alma 3 makes any sense.  An allegorical reading is nonsensical.  The idea that the people were marking themselves in v. 6 - 9 doesn't work.  This is what Church leaders and scholars have seen for decades, because it is what the text is saying.  Even the current Seminary Manual agrees that the "dark skin" is literally a "dark skin":

 

 

Quote

As students study Alma 3, they might have questions about the mark and the curse placed upon the Lamanites. You may want to explain that there is a difference between the mark and the curse. The mark placed upon the Lamanites was dark skin (see Alma 3:6). The purpose of this mark was to distinguish and separate the Lamanites from the Nephites (see Alma 3:8). The curse, which was more serious, was the state of being “cut off from the presence of the Lord” (2 Nephi 5:20). The Lamanites and the Amlicites brought this curse upon themselves because of their rebellion against God (see 2 Nephi 5:20; Alma 3:18–19). Although dark skin was used in this instance as a mark of the curse placed upon the Lamanites, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Seminary Teacher Manual - The Book of Mormon

English Approval - 10/2009

(emphasis added)

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I haven't ignored anything.  I fully understand, acknowledge and agree that different words are used in different ways throughout the scriptures.  I also think it's great that we can move beyond the idea God cursed people with a dark skin.  I certainly don't believe it actually happened that way.

But that still doesn't mean that the "text" doesn't say what it says.   Rodney Turner wasn't a lawyer, he was a scholar.  He taught classes on the scriptures at BYU for over 30 years, and had a PhD .  That may not be the kind of "scholar" you like, but that doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about.  And it's a little presumptuous to accuse him of being insincere.  I suspect he knew much more about Nibley than most other people, and just because he didn't agree with Nibley's re-interpretation of the issue doesn't mean he hadn't "come to grips" with it.

A real scholar would have cited the formidable argument made by Nibley, and would have dealt with it head on.  He did not (nor have you).  I have seen nothing by Turner that would indicate scholarship.   He had an EdD, rather than a PhD.  I personally know scholars on that faculty, both active, retired, and deceased.  Some I have known all my adult life.

But ultimately you have failed in the most important point: you still haven't explained how an alternate explanation for Alma 3 makes any sense.  An allegorical reading is nonsensical.  The idea that the people were marking themselves in v. 6 - 9 doesn't work.  This is what Church leaders and scholars have seen for decades, because it is what the text is saying.  Even the current Seminary Manual agrees that the "dark skin" is literally a "dark skin":

You are correct to observe that this has been a very popular idea and interpretation, but it means that everything else must be studiously ignored.  I don't see any scholars supporting these wrong ideas.

You need to go back and read the incisive comments of Carnevale, Nibley, and Sorenson, and ask yourself whether  you have missed the main point, which is that even the most explicit words and phrases may have to be taken as formulaic and standard ways of explaining a phenomenon -- in light of all the other such references in Scripture.  Your "plain" reading of Alma 3 invalidates the "plain" reading of other texts and therefore destroys the coherence of the text at large.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are correct to observe that this has been a very popular idea and interpretation, but it means that everything else must be studiously ignored.  I don't see any scholars supporting these wrong ideas.

You need to go back and read the incisive comments of Carnevale, Nibley, and Sorenson, and ask yourself whether  you have missed the main point, which is that even the most explicit words and phrases may have to be taken as formulaic and standard ways of explaining a phenomenon -- in light of all the other such references in Scripture.  Your "plain" reading of Alma 3 invalidates the "plain" reading of other texts and therefore destroys the coherence of the text at large.

You may recall that this section of the discussion started on Sunday, when you took exception to Rongo's observation that the clear, obvious reading of the text supports the literal view of a skin color change.

You then said:

 

Quote

 

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.

(Sunday 2:44pm)

 

All I can say is that the plain reading of Alma 3 (i.e. that the "skins of the Lamanites were dark" is actually referring to their actual skin being actually darker)  is the one still taught by the Church, and that the attempts by scholars to explain it away are not convincing because they rely on simplistic generalizations about language across different books of scripture, types of literary usage in scripture, and different authors and cultures.

In addition to the Seminary manual, here's how the Institute manual teaches it:

 

 

Quote

There is a difference between the mark and the curse. The mark placed upon the Lamanites was a dark skin (see Alma 3:6 ). The curse was not the dark skin but being “cut off from the presence of the Lord” ( 2 Nephi 5:20 ). Notice that in both Alma 3:7 and Alma 3:14 the conjunction and is used between the curse and the mark. This implies that they are not the same thing. The people brought the curse upon themselves: “And even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation” ( Alma 3:19 ). Through righteousness the curse may be removed, but the mark may remain as it has with the Lamanites (see commentary for 2 Nephi 5:20–25 on page 62).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-23-alma-1-4?lang=eng

 

 

This is probably another issue like Noah's Global Flood.  You can cite endless statements and facts supported by scholars, but nothing you can do will change what the Scriptures teach, and what the Church teaches about those Scriptures.  That's fine to believe (or disbelieve) whatever you want.  But if you go so far as to try and pretend that the Church is somehow supporting your disbelief, that's where you are veering into willful self-delusion.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by cinepro

[canard78]

On 2/1/2016 at 4:07 PM, 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:

 

 

Robert F. Smith wrote:

 

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. 

I was going to get involved, but the believing Mormons in one camp, like Rongo, are doing such a good job of demonstrating that believing Mormons, like Robert Smith, in another are talking nonsense that I hardly feel the need to join in.

Hardly... but probably will anyway...

[canard78]

On 2/1/2016 at 6:50 PM, 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.

This is just typical flannel with no actual attempt to answer the question cinepro posed.