Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[theplains]

On 01/02/2016 at 4:07 PM, CV75 said:

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.

All these appendages, whether true or false inventions of LDS leaders, form the LDS body.
This includes past, present, and future teachings.

The line of thinking in JW (Watchtower) theology is that new light comes to correct old false light.

Regards,
Jim

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, theplains said:

All these appendages, whether true or false inventions of LDS leaders, form the LDS body.
This includes past, present, and future teachings.

The line of thinking in JW (Watchtower) theology is that new light comes to correct old false light.

Regards,
Jim

If something is not relevant to the fundamental principle, it is not relevant to its appendages either.

The appendages are covered by Christ's grace, as He is the Superior upon which they depend, as in:  “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

The same principle is evident in the relationship we have with the Lord, which saves us (see John 15): “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. …every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

I think the JW theology is backwards. True old light comes to correct new false light, as occurs in the Restoration! And any new light the Lord sheds forth builds upon the Restoration.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

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

The fact is, the beliefs as espoused in general conference are changing, and the correlated materials follow.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that- that is what an open canon is for.

We get complaints from one side that the church is changing by making strong statements about same sex marriage and then the same side says that the church should not change past statements about race.  You can't win for losing

The fact is that prevailing interpretations of scripture change over time, as the brethren see the need to see the world differently.  That is called "adaptation to circumstance" and it is an evidence of a LIVING church.

Get over it.  

[omni]

On February 2, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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 . . . ?

Robert,

While I appreciate your attempts to disavow the racist teachings of the past, can you please provide authoritative statements from past or currents prophets supporting the idea of dark skins in the BoM being metaphorical?  Nibley was a smart guy and all, but as you know, he had as much authority to declare doctrine for the church as I do.

[BlueDreams]

21 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 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":

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

.....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:

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.

 

I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I've been watching this a little antsy because I currently have a 15 page paper that I'm currently (and REALLY slowly) editing discussing this very point. So it's hard to read calls for explanations when I know i'm basically sitting on an explanation. Before that, though, for the bolded, this quote also doesn't work because of its date of approval (2009). I know that's fairly recent, but it's still 6 years ago and before the scriptural chapter descriptions were changed and the quorum gave approval to the new essay. It would be like quoting something from 1975 about what we believe about the priesthood ban. Or quoting Kimball from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual about interracial marriage. I'm not saying that these are on the same scale (obviously) but that the general direction and push is for such that it's fairly safe to dismiss them as now obsolete. Besides one is far more important in my opinion than an institue manual (ie. scriptural headers). Moving on....

First I see a problem with your call. The parameters you've set up make it near impossible to fulfill. In one breath you've asked for evidence and then in the next preemptively discredit any potential evidence or argument for such. It's also impossible to make it make sense to somebody who simply cannot picture it meaning anything else. It reminds me of those mirage pictures where if you stared long enough a picture would form. I can stare until I'm cross-eyed and all I see is a nonsensical pattern. In short I can't give you my eyes nor my experience with these passages that have radically shifted how I read them.

also, though they are different books of scripture the ones that i focused on on my paper all come from the same translator....a translator who was very into the idea of restoring truth that resonated through all history and that the truth of God was not as disjointed as solely having the bible would make it appear. In short the universal application and scriptural continuity were major underpinnings to all of his translations. Ergo you would expect similar language to have similar meanings in what he translated.

So that said, I really doubt this will convince you....but it can at least give you a glimpse of what the scriptures look like to someone who reads the curse and references to "skin" as not a phenotypic/genetic change. Here are a select few parts that i felt applied to your question. 

 

{this passage comes after a section about the PoPG and Genesis JST descriptors of curses and markings}

 

This unifies the language of cursings among some of the first populations described in scripture. Blackness, darkness, and being veiled are used interchangeably in these passages. The problematic beliefs of racial changes to distinguish black people are not found in the scriptures themselves, but in our past, where people placed their own social definitions of color into the scriptures instead of the definition the scriptures give themselves. For us, due to our cultural and historical fixation of race, black = a person with darker skin tone and a distinctive marker between peoples entails drastic physiological distinctions. Reading the scriptures while asking the question what is black or darkness, yields a differing answer. For the scriptures, black = removed from God and his covenants/blessings and the removal in itself is considered a mark, distinctive because they live by their own set of laws, limitations, and interactions in their own group, with God, and with the covenanted peoples. What these people phenotypically looked like is unclear and it’s unnecessary to converge our history of prejudice and racial separation into scriptural definitions.

 

In summary, black is defined early on as a distinct separation and cursing by God that inhibits their connection to sacred rites and knowledge from God. It is also tied with active rebellion and, at its worst, an active seeking of Satanic philosophies and practices. Black, in these verses, is also interchangeable with veiling and darkness and will appear as a shorthand descriptor for having “no place” among those who follow God.  These similar definitions continue and are utilized in other ways throughout all the scriptures.

 

 

 

…….

 

 

 

The curse that will fall upon the Lamanites is foreshadowed from the commencement of the BoM. The 2^nd chapter notes that they will be “cursed with a sore curse” if they rebel against the Lord. The most extensive foreshadowing is seen in 1 Nephi 11-12 and is tied into the Dark/light motif that is utilized in describing the vision of the Tree of Life. Chapter 11 first describes the Tree of Life in terms of whiteness, beauty, and preciousness. These descriptors are then used to describe specific righteous figures including, Mary, Christ, and the apostles. They are described, as partakers of the “love of God” through following the “word of God” that led them to “the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life,” symbols of this love. Those who follow the light of God are described as having their “garments made white in [Christ’s] blood.” The shorthand is that the righteous generations are “made white in the blood of the Lamb.”  Ergo their whiteness and beauty are direct results to their partaking in the atonement of Christ. They are given a “land of promise” and are described as “righteous forever.”

 

It is contrasted by the path away from God and into fallen and “broad roads.” These fallen generations of the nephite/lamanite peoples are described as having a “mist of darkness” covering their land of promise, and it becomes a land that is “broken up” and “sunk.” These are seen in the literal destruction before the coming of Christ but are also later expanded as the “temptations of the devil” that lead to blindness, hardened hearts, and perishing. These false paths are supported by as vain imaginations that leave a terrible divide between them and God. It is these temptations that would in the end overpower Nephite and Lamanite alike. They are prophesied to be “dwindling in unbelief” and are thus described as dark, loathsome and filthy which are also key descriptions to the symbols in the tree of life vision, such as the filthy waters and mists of darkness. In essence, they become partakers in the dark, filthy environment that they have chosen for themselves. In this manner, what happens to the Nephites and Lamanites is directly tied into an ancient rhythm of light and dark, beauty and filth, life and death that has played out throughout all time.

 

….

 

The commencement of the curse against the Lamanites begins in 2 Nephi  5:20-25 when the two groups separate from each other. In similar fashion to previous cursings it is contrasted by the righteous. The people who leave with Nephi are faithful and they are firmly guided by their scriptural legacy and a prophet. In short the “Lord was with” them. They prosper, are industrious, and are purpose driven; following what would later be described as the “manner of happiness.” The people of Laman are described in V. 20 as “cut off from the presence of the Lord” which will last as long as they do not “hearken unto [Nephi’s] words.” This basic concept is repeatedly elaborated in differing ways through this section, in direct contrast to the People of Nephi’s lifestyle. These descriptions are important motifs used throughout the BoM.  They were once “white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome” which was defined previously as those who followed the covenants of God and are partakers in Christ’s Atonement and name. By being cut off from the Lord they are left in darkness, which is described as having “a skin of blackness to come upon them.” I find the use of a singular “skin” on several people gives a picture of something uniform being pulled over them. And in terms of the context of other scriptures (one footnoted directly in the text and discussed below) veil, mists, and scales are also used in like fashion to describe the curse. We don’t literally believe the Lamanites had scaley eyes or that they walked around with black veils. What it means to have a skin of blackness is mentioned clearly and repetitiously throughout this section: They are cut off, they are loosed from the covenants, they are loosed from the blessings, and they are left to become an idle people full of their own pursuits, having varying degrees of darkness or a fallen nature. Idle is an interesting adjective because the definition of the word is tied to a sense of purposelessness and emptiness. So it is stating that they have lost the purpose to their creation. Such a read clarifies verses 22-23 that indicate an immediate transformation to this loathsome, cut off state. It is definite and can be brought upon one’s children by adopting the ways or in effect marrying into the darkness. One stops being loathsome, idle/purposeless, subtle, cut off, and blackened simply by repenting, returning to the covenanted fold and being cleansed white (or pure) through the blood of Christ.

 

….

 

 

 

{describing other passages between 2nephi and the Alma 3 passage} for example in Enos 1:20 there is a more lengthy description of the Lamanites that reiterates the first separation. Here, though, darkness/blackness is notably missing. It is interchanged with the words idolatry and filthiness. The Lamanites had abandoned all signs of the covenant people, followed traditions that the Nephites would have found disturbing, were generally violent and had a continual fixed opposition and hatred to the Nephites.

 

…….

 

{discussing distinctions in Alma 3 from other passages in the BoM} For examplt, this chapter is the only passage in the Book of Mormon that uses the term “mark” in reference to the Lamanite’s curse.* Because of the discomforting ramifications of stating that a people were cursed with darker skin, people often try to decouple the curse from the mark.  This line of reasoning assures the reader that the Lamanites weren’t cursed by black skin, but rather it was just the marker (or indication) of the real curse. Yet there is no immediate distinguishing between the curse and the mark in this passage. They are used interchangeably throughout. So in verse 6, for example, they talk about the skins being “dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse….”   The idea of a mark, in this context, only has meaning when it is coupled with the curse. It is, in essence, a short hand for all the parameters associated with the curse and inevitably is the same thing: a designation that notes a distinct separation from God and His people.

 

The reason the mark is explained in these verses is to highlight the significance of the Amlicites marking themselves. The mark for the Amlicites was the red in their foreheads “according to the manner of the Lamanites.” In other words in their rebellion and hatred they had begun to adopt the Lamanite traditions. Marking their foreheads red, was a call of allegiance and a physical banner that showed, quite clearly, that they had adopted at least some of the Lamanite traditions and customs, which were black or forbidden and remote from the ways of God. Simultaneously, They were marked/cursed because they had removed themselves from one tradition in favor of the other, apparent in how they presented themselves and acted. The curse separated them from their natal group and removed them from the covenants of the Lord. They were removed from the skins/garments/covenants of the Lord and received the skins/false covenants/traditions of the Deceiver (Namely animosity, carnality, and violence). In other words, they were overtaken by their chosen environment and they adopted a “skin” that was dark, in this context, defined by their presentation, practices, and hatred/opposition to the Nephites.

 

As an aside, the distinctions that make up the mark for the Lamanites are also listed and described in this passage as their customs and appearance (shaved head, red in foreheads, weapons, scantily clothed…etc). This appearance is then short-handed as “skin of blackness” or the many obvious distinctions that indicate they are cut off from the Lord’s ways and leading drastically different lives from that of the Nephites. Actual skin tone is unnecessary to recognize the distinctions between the Lamanites and Nephites, and would be a hindrance to the idea that the mark can be removed simply if “they repent of their wickedness and turn to [God].” They may or may not have an immediate physical symbol to them. The distinguishing characteristics specifically mentioned are still sufficient as marking them as outside of the Lord’s covenants and far removed from the Lord’s ways. It also makes it more congruent as to how the curse/mark could be transmitted over generations (it was taught in their environment) while also able to be removed immediately, simply by conversion to the Gospel.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 3, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

So it looks like the majority of people vote that it's man made so far.  And if BD's post above is true, that the scriptures in the BoM and others, meant something different than skin.  Are we to assume, or me rather, that the prophets/leaders got it wrong?  Did they read that it was skin?

I went to the Sundance Film festival and saw the winner of the event...the movie called "The Birth of a Nation", a story based on the life of Nat Turner.  Throughout it, I couldn't get out of my mind our church not allowing the black men and women the PH until 1978.  But the past is past.  Movies like this help hopefully to never repeat the past.  

Edited February 3, 2016 by Tacenda

[rongo]

.

[rongo]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

I think this is a very good way to look at this. How one views what the scriptures and Brethren have taught about the priesthood ban is very similar to how one views the Flood (global or local, Noah real or allegorical, etc.), Adam and Eve in Missouri (literal or allegorical), and similar things.

The "scholarly" take would on this would be that there was no global flood (and perhaps not even a real Noah), but one looks in vain for *any* scriptural or Brethren statements in support of such a position. The scriptures and what the Brethren (past and present) have said about the flood all without fail align completely with the literal, global flood. And those of a "scholarly" bent are chagrined, for example, about the Donald Parry Ensign article on the global flood and the Tower of Babel. They find it to be an embarrassment, but such things are the only positions that appear in official Church organs or sources. One searches in vain for even any indirect treatment of the flood or Tower of Babel (such as in the Ensign) from Church leaders that the "scholarly" faction could rejoice in and use in these discussions. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

I think cinepro is exactly right that all commentary from the Brethren aligns completely with the view that has always been expressed; namely, that the dark skin curses in the scriptures mean literal dark skin, not allegory or metaphor. I don't think this is in dispute. 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

So it looks like the majority of people vote that it's man made so far.  And if BD's post above is true, that the scriptures in the BoM and others, meant something different than skin.  Are we to assume, or me rather, that the prophets/leaders got it wrong?  Did they read that it was skin?  

I think at some point, someone or something got it wrong in our history. And I wouldn't limit it to prophets....this wasn't simply a prophetically derived belief, but a culturally derived one. BY didn't magically create a ban out of no where or nothing. I'm still slowly reading Paul Reeve's book and what has struck me is that their view point is basically foreign to most of us now. Their assumptions about humanity and genetics reiterated a racial stratification that they were born into, lived, and accepted as the natural order of things. From that stemmed more "natural" beliefs about humanity, particularly anyone slightly different from the established norm. Some of these our LDS predecessors rejected, others went unquestioned, and still some took on a thoroughly LDS re-interpretation that continued the vindication of a white mostly northern-european derived way. It isn't just that they got it wrong, but that they started on the wrong assumptions and with the wrong question at the heart of it. 

I would guess that most in this era read it as literal skin/phenotype (I'm guessing here and generalizing, I'm sure there's evidence that would run counter to this)....they read things as skin color change that not even the texts really bolster with further inspection (ie. cain's blackness and african ancestry). In a similar fashion as the science of their day asserted physiological changes/degradation of mormon based off of activities they considered barbaric behaviors. It's really quite isomorphic and fairly accepted at that time that one's behavior could literally change one's physiological appearance down to the genes. To a level that we now reject.

To me there have been 3-4 basic assertions that I've seen here:

- all/most (or at least the basic thrust) of their teachings on this were relatively correct and we've just become less open about some "deep doctrine." Often some level of hard heartedness of this generation of believers is also assumed 

- All/most of their teachings on this was false, but the ban could have maybe been god-derived. This one's evidence is usually vague.

- All/most of their teachings on this was false and it highlights the falsehoods that happen from fallible scriptural text as well. This can throw a ton of shade on scriptures and the revelatory process.

- All/most(or at leas some) of their teachings on this was false and were misinterpreted when reading sacred literature. This one means we got something really wrong and leaves room as to what we may still get wrong today.

You can choose your poison. All have their possible traps and problems, including the one I ascribe to most.

With luv,

BD   

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I've been watching this a little antsy because I currently have a 15 page paper that I'm currently (and REALLY slowly) editing discussing this very point. So it's hard to read calls for explanations when I know i'm basically sitting on an explanation. Before that, though, for the bolded, this quote also doesn't work because of its date of approval (2009). I know that's fairly recent, but it's still 6 years ago and before the scriptural chapter descriptions were changed and the quorum gave approval to the new essay. It would be like quoting something from 1975 about what we believe about the priesthood ban. Or quoting Kimball from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual about interracial marriage. I'm not saying that these are on the same scale (obviously) but that the general direction and push is for such that it's fairly safe to dismiss them as now obsolete. Besides one is far more important in my opinion than an institue manual (ie. scriptural headers). Moving on....

 

 

So that said, I really doubt this will convince you....but it can at least give you a glimpse of what the scriptures look like to someone who reads the curse and references to "skin" as not a phenotypic/genetic change. Here are a select few parts that i felt applied to your question. 

 

BD

As I've said before, I'm entirely open (and supportive) of any efforts to discredit The Book of Mormon's claims about skin color and curses; I certainly don't believe for a second that anyone's skin color was in any way directly influenced by God's opinion about their actions.  No one would be happier to have the Church step forward and say "These passages are the result of the racism of the author(s) of the book, and not a true account of the origin of the dark skin."  I would also love to see some discovery that radically (and better) explains the passages in Alma 3 as not describing an actual change in skin color. 

But I will continue to point out weaknesses in any proposed alternate theories, no matter how sincerely they are presented, because apologetics based on self-delusion don't do anybody any good.  Sadly, I think it is almost impossible to get around Alma 3:6-8.  The wording is so clear and precise, that all alternate attempted explanations fall short (so far), including the eloquent one you have suggested.

As for the manuals, obviously we can ignore them if we need to.  I only quoted them to show what is currently being taught to the high-school and college age youth and adults of the Church in Church published manuals about the meaning of Alma 3.   If there were any OD2-type change to these teachings requiring an amendment, I have no doubt that change would be made available on the Church website so teachers could supplement their lessons until new manuals could be produced; no doubt lessons in the Fall of 1978 included the new information of OD2 even if the manuals hadn't yet been updated.

That being said, if you can't find something on the Church website that explicitly contradicts or updates the clear teachings about the plain reading of the text, then it's a little presumptuous to say "Ignore the current manuals because they are seven years old I have this alternate theory that has never been supported by the Church but I'm sure they would teach it if they only knew about it."  (Which, as Rodney Turner showed, Church instructors are aware of these alternate theories, but don't teach them.)

 

[busybee]

All I will say on this topic is that the African-American people are so far removed from the people of Africa  that they could almost be from a different origin. Tribal laws and culture still exist strongly in Africa today, When the ban was in place it was very much more so. Matriarchal tribes and politics of the time in many African countries would have made it very difficult for Priesthood holders to exercise their Priesthood effectively and without repercussions. There are still tribes where polygamy is the rule rather than the exception. Sadly all people of African origin were affected by the ban. But still the majority of people affected were actually in Africa. When the gospel was able to be taken to the African people (remember, in some countries, it was illegal for the races to interact, so missionaries could not teach and there could be no mentoring and training by people of Caucasian origin ) they received it with open arms and were able to be nurtured as needed to grow in the gospel. And seem to have less of a problem with the ban than those who weren't affected by it. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by busybee

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

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:

Of course it is taught and has been in the past, and there are people like yourself who are so wedded to that approach that no amount of fact-based reasoning will have much impact.  As an excuse for your head-in-sand approach you see hair-brained scholars merely trying to "explain it away"  based "on simplistic generalizations about language, . . literary usage," etc., when in truth it is the very strong tendency among the Mormon hoi polloi to adopt Protestant standards in understanding the plain text which exemplifies the problem of eisegesis most acutely.

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.

You have it backward, cinepro.  The entire scholarly enterprise is an effort to avoid self-delusion and special pleading, but especially to prevent folklore and a priori notions from controlling one's interpretation (exegesis) of texts.  For that one needs a community of self-critical scholars who are willing to sit in judgment on one another, and to allow themselves to be taught by the generations of scholars before them.

The Great Deluge is an excellent example of what can be learned through careful attention to the text, and we have discussed that several times on this board.  Church leaders, manuals, and ordinary members may express one view, but scholarship may bring into focus a very different view -- as we have seen on this board.  Should we automatically ignore or heap contempt on those differences of view, only because they fly in the face of tradition?   One might want to take a look at David Bokovoy, Authoring the OT (Kofford, 2014), to see what he says on the matter.  Or is the Hebrew text to be ignored?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, busybee said:

All I will say on this topic is that the African-American people are so far removed from the people of Africa  that they could almost be from a different origin. Tribal laws and culture still exist strongly in Africa today, When the ban was in place it was very much more so. Matriarchal tribes and politics of the time in many African countries would have made it very difficult for Priesthood holders to exercise their Priesthood effectively and without repercussions. There are still tribes where polygamy is the rule rather than the exception. Sadly all people of African origin were affected by the ban. But still the majority of people affected were actually in Africa. When the gospel was able to be taken to the African people (remember, in some countries, it was illegal for the races to interact, so missionaries could not teach and there could be no mentoring and training by people of Caucasian origin ) they received it with open arms and were able to be nurtured as needed to grow in the gospel. And seem to have less of a problem with the ban than those who weren't affected by it. 

How odd, in light of what you claim, that other churches had no difficulty -- including the RLDS Church, which accepted polygamous members (even though polygamy was anathema to their church).  The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches maintained very aggressive missions to all of Africa while we were dithering.  We will always be able to find rational excuses why God might have wanted the ban, but never even a hint of a revelation to support it.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/3/2016 at 5:12 PM, canard78 said:

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

Flannel, canard?  Not sure I get the gist of that, but I am sure that you are not referencing the old missionary flannel boards.

ETA:  Calm gave me a definition, so I see what you are saying, but is it possible that you and cinepro are actually ignoring the words of Nibley, Carnevale, and Sorenson, and just assuming that the surface meaning is all that is there -- that there is no relation to any other text, and that the only reason anyone might see any other meaning is because they have a hidden or subconscious agenda?  The thing about scholarship is that it doesn't need any sort of agenda.  In fact, that defeats the purpose of scholarship, and other scholars are the first to find fault with special pleading.  Moreover, neither you or cinepro have bothered to engage the words of Nibley and the others.  You are instead simply dismissive in a way never employed by scholars.  Why?  Are you afraid of an actual discussion?  That does happen on this discussion board.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/141262-quot-flannel-quot-unnecessary-words

[bdouglas]

I’ve read Brant Grander’s explanation of “skin color” in his BOM commentaries, and I have read most of this thread. Sometimes in the scriptures skin color is used metaphorircally, and sometimes it is talked about literally, as in Alma 3 (before referenced). People can spin (and it takes a lot of spin, pages and pages) Alma 3 and other verses like it all they want, but in the end it seems pretty obvious that Alma is talking about, literally, skin color.

 

There are good reasons to soften what the BOM has to say about this. But on the other hand, it’s hard to make an ancient text conform to our p.c. standards today.

Edited February 3, 2016 by bdouglas

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it is taught and has been in the past, and there are people like yourself who are so wedded to that approach that no amount of fact-based reasoning will have much impact.  As an excuse for your head-in-sand approach you see hair-brained scholars merely trying to "explain it away"  based "on simplistic generalizations about language, . . literary usage," etc., when in truth it is the very strong tendency among the Mormon hoi polloi to adopt Protestant standards in understanding the plain text which exemplifies the problem of eisegesis most acutely.

Well, I can't say it any more than I already have, so all that's left is for me to wish you and the other scholars luck in making headway within the ranks of Church leadership towards one day having Alma 3 disavowed.  Since it will require a massive reinterpretation (bordering on denunciation) of what the text says, I don't hold out hope of your success.  But I will be the first to applaud on that day when an official Church publication argues that Alma 3 isn't actually referring to an actual change in skin color. 

Good luck!

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Well, I can't say it any more than I already have, so all that's left is for me to wish you and the other scholars luck in making headway within the ranks of Church leadership towards one day having Alma 3 disavowed.  Since it will require a massive reinterpretation (bordering on denunciation) of what the text says, I don't hold out hope of your success.  But I will be the first to applaud on that day when an official Church publication argues that Alma 3 isn't actually referring to an actual change in skin color. 

Good luck!

I am talking to you and other members of this board, and not to any sort of Church leaders or manual writers.  I have not even entertained the notion that leaders and writers are interested in anything I have to say.  Most people have hard and fast opinions before the fact and are unlikely to do any sort of somersaults or paradigm shifts.  What other so-called scholars might do on this score may not matter at all.  I do think it sad though that someone like yourself (intelligent and strongly opposed to racism) should be so committed to surface interpretation.  I would have thought that you would be most likely to adopt the view that we must take all such references in the Book of Mormon (and the remainder of Holy Writ) and try to find some sort of commonality among them -- such that we do them justice.  What a disappointment to find you part of the stodgy old traditional approach.  I spent many years listening to Protestants tell me the same sort of malarkey about certain biblical texts.  Indeed, I once took that same shallow approach to understanding texts when I was young and still wet behind the ears.  That was a lifetime ago.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, bdouglas said:

I’ve read Brant Grander’s explanation of “skin color” in his BOM commentaries, and I have read most of this thread. Sometimes in the scriptures skin color is used metaphorircally, and sometimes it is talked about literally, as in Alma 3 (before referenced). People can spin (and it takes a lot of spin, pages and pages) Alma 3 and other verses like it all they want, but in the end it seems pretty obvious that Alma is talking about, literally, skin color.

 

There are good reasons to soften what the BOM has to say about this. But on the other hand, it’s hard to make an ancient text conform to our p.c. standards today.

So you find Hugh Nibley was wrong on this score?  Where did his explanation go wrong?

[bdouglas]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you find Hugh Nibley was wrong on this score?  Where did his explanation go wrong?

I admire Nibley very much. I have most of his books and I agree with most, almost all, of what he says. But it doesn't mean he isn't wrong about some things. I will give you an example of something most people on this board would probably think he was wrong about.

In one of his essays on Zion he says the church's preoccupation with sex is a case of switched villains. The church has, he says, taken a dummy villain (sex), and set it up in place of the real villain. He uses the old melodramas of stage and film as examples, where the town drunk is universally supposed to be the villain in the beginning, when in fact the real villain turns out to be the respectable bank president (or some such character). I'm paraphrasing what he said, and I may have got some of it wrong, but I think the gist is right.

How many people on this board would agree with this particular view of Nibley’s? For my part, I accept it. I think he was dead on, especially for that particular time in the church. But other people I’ve mentioned it to have rejected it outright, even been offended by it, although they might like just about everything else he said.

I love Nibley. He is the one church author I really read. I almost never read church books, but I do read Nibley and will continue to read him probably until I die. But that doesn’t mean I think he was right 100% of the time.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I admire Nibley very much. I have most of his books and I agree with most, almost all, of what he says. But it doesn't mean he isn't wrong about some things. I will give you an example of something most people on this board would probably think he was wrong about.

In one of his essays on Zion he says the church's preoccupation with sex is a case of switched villains. The church has, he says, taken a dummy villain (sex), and set it up in place of the real villain. He uses the old melodramas of stage and film as examples, where the town drunk is universally supposed to be the villain in the beginning, when in fact the real villain turns out to be the respectable bank president (or some such character). I'm paraphrasing what he said, and I may have got some of it wrong, but I think the gist is right.

How many people on this board would agree with this particular view of Nibley’s? For my part, I accept it. I think he was dead on, especially for that particular time in the church. But other people I’ve mentioned it to have rejected it outright, even been offended by it, although they might like just about everything else he said.

I love Nibley. He is the one church author I really read. I almost never read church books, but I do read Nibley and will continue to read him probably until I die. But that doesn’t mean I think he was right 100% of the time.

So you reject Hugh Nibley, LID, 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 that the words of Charles Carvnevale are just beside the point:  January 5, 2012 at 7:15 pm online at http://mormonstories.org/307-311-translating-the-book-of-mormon-with-brant-gardner/ ,  

Quote

Re: skin colour and pigmentation.

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.

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[bdouglas]

However, having said this, I do hope your view (Robert Smith's) ultimately prevails. I have two Mexican stepsons, and my wife is Mexican, and we have had some delicate, painful discussions about this subject. I can see why people would want to hold this view, and I can see why Nibley expended considerable effort in his "spin". But that is what I see it as: spin. But it is spin I hope to see prevail.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The fact is, the beliefs as espoused in general conference are changing, and the correlated materials follow.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that- that is what an open canon is for.

We get complaints from one side that the church is changing by making strong statements about same sex marriage and then the same side says that the church should not change past statements about race.  You can't win for losing

The fact is that prevailing interpretations of scripture change over time, as the brethren see the need to see the world differently.  That is called "adaptation to circumstance" and it is an evidence of a LIVING church.

Get over it.  

Why do you constantly tell your opponent to get over it.

The church you attempt to defend really is non existent.  Those who run it and have run it don't claim it to be as fluid as you if things that are said now contradict what has been said I the past.   

One of the claims of the LDS church is a God is the same today, yesterday and forever and thus would continue to speak through prophets and apostles. But I never seem them defend the church with the claims you make above.  This comes from defenders and apologists who redefine th Church because their othr defenses seems to fail so badly.

so now should I tell you to glibly get over it?

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

As I've said before, I'm entirely open (and supportive) of any efforts to discredit The Book of Mormon's claims about skin color and curses; I certainly don't believe for a second that anyone's skin color was in any way directly influenced by God's opinion about their actions.  No one would be happier to have the Church step forward and say "These passages are the result of the racism of the author(s) of the book, and not a true account of the origin of the dark skin."  I would also love to see some discovery that radically (and better) explains the passages in Alma 3 as not describing an actual change in skin color. 

But I will continue to point out weaknesses in any proposed alternate theories, no matter how sincerely they are presented, because apologetics based on self-delusion don't do anybody any good.  Sadly, I think it is almost impossible to get around Alma 3:6-8.  The wording is so clear and precise, that all alternate attempted explanations fall short (so far), including the eloquent one you have suggested.

I guess that's the problem that I was trying to get at. It's only clear when one is saturated in a specific paradigm of thought. You keep calling it obvious or apparent but this isn't self evident, it's circular. It's the most obvious because it was the first view/interpretation presented to most of us and that was the first view given because it's a view help prior to the text's translation....which then influenced the reading of said text. The "obvious" interpretation itself has serious holes and flaws and a number of internal inconsistencies with the text, but we ignore that. Basically it feels like an unequal scrutiny.

Quote

As for the manuals, obviously we can ignore them if we need to.  I only quoted them to show what is currently being taught to the high-school and college age youth and adults of the Church in Church published manuals about the meaning of Alma 3.   If there were any OD2-type change to these teachings requiring an amendment, I have no doubt that change would be made available on the Church website so teachers could supplement their lessons until new manuals could be produced; no doubt lessons in the Fall of 1978 included the new information of OD2 even if the manuals hadn't yet been updated.

That being said, if you can't find something on the Church website that explicitly contradicts or updates the clear teachings about the plain reading of the text, then it's a little presumptuous to say "Ignore the current manuals because they are seven years old I have this alternate theory that has never been supported by the Church but I'm sure they would teach it if they only knew about it."  (Which, as Rodney Turner showed, Church instructors are aware of these alternate theories, but don't teach them.)

The pattern when it comes to race issues in the church hasn't been that explicit....minus OD2. Racial-oriented teachings just disappear. Take, for example interracial marriage. We have a quorum of the 12 approved document that explicitly states it's not a sin. Yet there was still a manual running around until very recently with the curriculum change in 2015. And previously (especially pre-1979) scriptures like Alma 3 were used to point out that the Lord "obviously" disapproves of interracial marriage. After it lingered for a bit, then quietly disappears beyond the manuals....and then is blatantly stated as false with the most current manuals removing the Kimball quote all together. There's usually not a big announcement and the wording against it is usually broad and not specific. This one is also being chiseled away and runs contradictory to the statement at the end of the race essay that directly states that the church disavows not only black skin as a curse but also as a sign of a curse or divines disfavor (in the traditional belief, that's exactly what the mark is interpreted as). This same section is then quoted almost word-for-word in the OT seminary Manual, which was updated in 2014...at the same time that the headings removed any highlights of said language...previously reading "because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge..." now it says "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites." It's following the basic trend of simply disappearing. The church has not shown that every change leads to an immediate rewrite of church curricula...but that the changes do eventually occur. Because of the changes already made are pointing to one direction, then to me it's safer to assume the older manuals are likely to hit some revision as well when their time comes. 

But these have all been mentioned at least once on the thread (minus the OT seminary manual)....due for some reason vaguely mentioned in terms of "obviousness" this will probably not be enough. Also that's definitely not what I was implying in bold...my point was that this theory is already being chipped away (at best), and entirely contradicted or removed (at worst) by what has come out by the church in the last 2 years. If this was solely my pet theory, I wouldn't expect anyone to pick it up over the manual.  As it stands Alma 3 is at a point where it's basically standing alone in "obviousness". The other curses with marks in them that were previously interpreted as black are specifically being disavowed....passages that used very similar/exact wording to that mentioned in Alma 3, such as this:

Moses7:8 "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people."

And this

moses 7:22 "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."

Or this:

Moses 5:40 " 40 And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

or this

JST Gen. 9:30 … 'Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men."

This isn't vaguely alike.....these are exact words and phrases and similar inferences. It's like saying the tree of life was somehow a different tree of life in the BoM because it was a different book. It makes no sense. Arguing that this is somehow a more apparent reading, considering it has holes and inconsistencies (both in present changes/statement and in actual text), just because it was the interpretation that was privileged for a long stretch, makes no sense. That even if one insists that the Lamanites aren't covered in the pretty explicit words in the essay, then it means they were somehow a completely unique peoples from the dawn of time to our present day (which is also really skrewy considering how much God loves witnesses, repetition and patterns ...and scourges and curses follow some pretty solid patterns)....having something that happened to them that didn't happen after them and didn't before and presumably never will again. Not even their blessed trip across many waters was described as so unique. Nothing, minus Christ and A+E have such a singular experience and they both still have plenty of christ-figures and similar patterns throughout scriptures. And this is well before you start poking too much into science and basic genetics, the color constructs of ancient hebrews, and subsequent scholarly works.

 

Basically i don't see anything obvious about it. I find it ridiculous, antiquated, and holey. And I haven't seen much of anything to believe that I should believe it's that amazingly obvious or the way the church is promoting it be read. You've got a student manual and an institute manual and no quotes/discourses on the mark/curse that I have in working memory and none that I could immediately find. Quoting Alma 3 over and over doesn't make it any more clear to me. I guess what I'm trying to say is just as this idea appears as wishful thinking/ridiculous/a stretch the argument for a metaphorical reading is to you, it appears about the same to me to assume this literal phenotypic distinction must be what Alma 3 is saying. It feels less like the flood in scriptural parallel and more like the 7-days creation (it obviously says days) or 6K long history or harping on evilution or other random things that we continue to hold onto...even when the church is largely silent about it, leave it up to personal interpretation, or have explicitly said something against it. Currently, with this issue, the church has done a little of all three.

  

With luv,

BD

Edited February 4, 2016 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why do you constantly tell your opponent to get over it.

The church you attempt to defend really is non existent.  Those who run it and have run it don't claim it to be as fluid as you if things that are said now contradict what has been said I the past.   

One of the claims of the LDS church is a God is the same today, yesterday and forever and thus would continue to speak through prophets and apostles. But I never seem them defend the church with the claims you make above.  This comes from defenders and apologists who redefine th Church because their othr defenses seems to fail so badly.

so now should I tell you to glibly get over it?

LOL heck yeah, You just did!

But of course I won't get over it.

I guess I belong to a different church then and have a different Christ and a different set of revelations etc.  Obviously at some point these are semantic issues- we can argue all day about what a "truth claim" is or is not anyway.  I thought we had gotten over that between us.  I thought we had an understanding about fundamentalism, but i guess not.  Sorry but I do not take you to be the Ultimate Dictator of what the church believes or doesn't believe

All I care about is My interpretation, as should we all.  

The only thing constant is change.  So yes God is unchanging in the fact that he changes.  We know he progresses and we know he hears and answers our prayers and is supposedly a God who "weeps".  Heraclitus first put forth this view of reality and compared it to a great river which was constantly changing yet always the same

But there is not much point in discussing it further.  Your mind seems to be is made up.