Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[Bobbieaware]

11 hours ago, bdouglas said:

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.

I wonder why the Lamanites who were converted through the ministry sons of Mosiah understood they were born under a curse, yet for some reason they didn't allow the curse to define who they were; nor did they allow the curse to produce negative self-perceptions that unavoidably hinder dynamic spiritual growth? Rather than allow the curse to generate inferiority complexes within their hearts and minds, these wonderful Lamanites just laid the curse aside, like so much excess baggage, and by means of living-faith boldly moved forward in personal holiness and spirituality until their righteousness rivaled that of even the most faithful Nephites. Great faith in Christ obliterates all the barriers that stand in the way of obtaining a positive self-image, and because of him there is no valid reason to grovel in the dust with low self-esteem. All things, including curses, can be successfully overcome through faith in Christ.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Spelling

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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.

  

With luv,

BD

This mystifies me.  I can only ask you the same thing I've asked others who suggest this isn't describing a literal change in skin color.  Please outline any theory that you feel makes sense for these verses:

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

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

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

Alma 3

Specifically, in verse 6, if "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" isn't referring to their actual dermis, what is it referring to? 

Now, take whatever explanation you suggest and test it against verse 8, in which we are told that this "dark skin" was done so that the "seed" (i.e. descendants) of Laman and Lemuel could be "distinguished" from the descendants of the Nephites and they wouldn't mix.

If you can offer any alternate theory that fits that description, I'll be impressed.  So far no one has been able to do it (and that includes Nibley).

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Ethan Sproat, Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015). 

Abstract: "Traditional interpretations of the various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon have asserted variations of two basic perspectives: first, the Book of Mormon describes God as darkening the flesh pigmentation of some wicked peoples as a mark of a curse; or alternately, the descriptions of “white” skins and “dark” skins in the Book of Mormon are only metaphorical descriptions and not necessarily descriptions of flesh pigmentation. However, a careful textual analysis of all the relevant terms and passages in the Book of Mormon (and its closest literary analog, the King James Version of the Bible) strongly suggests that the various-colored skins in the Book of Mormon can be understood more coherently as a kind of authoritative garment. The relevant texts further lend themselves to associating such garment-skins with both the Nephite temple and competing Lamanite claims to kingship. Ultimately, this exegesis suggests that such garment-skins (as the mark of the Lamanites’ curse) can be understood as being self-administered, removable, and inherited in the same way that authoritative vestments in the King James Version are self-administered, removable, and inherited."

I wonder if Sproat lurks here. I've been saying the same for years. 

[busybee]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches do not have a lay clergy that could have caused cultural difficulties for those involved. I do not believe that the RLDS church ever had a significant presence in Africa.

I actually don't expect anyone who has no experience of living Africa during that era to understand. It is a very unique continent.

You might be very interested to see what had happened to Catholic and Protestant doctrines in Africa during that time. They had become deeply intermingled with tribal traditions etc. I remember, as a child, witnessing groups of Protestant worshippers running around (outdoors) in a large circle beating the hell (literally) out of each other. In the innocence of childhood we used to call them devil chasers.

You cannot give people what we believe to be God's authority without guidance and mentoring in the proper use of that authority. Or do you suggest we should have conferred the Priesthood on the Black people and then let them get on with it? Politics and social structure, at the time, made it almost impossible to give the guidance and mentoring required. In South Africa the only white people who were allowed to enter the black locations were government officials on government business. It was an awful time to live through. 

Edited February 4, 2016 by busybee

[consiglieri]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

This mystifies me.  I can only ask you the same thing I've asked others who suggest this isn't describing a literal change in skin color.  Please outline any theory that you feel makes sense for these verses:

 

 

Specifically, in verse 6, if "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" isn't referring to their actual dermis, what is it referring to? 

Now, take whatever explanation you suggest and test it against verse 8, in which we are told that this "dark skin" was done so that the "seed" (i.e. descendants) of Laman and Lemuel could be "distinguished" from the descendants of the Nephites and they wouldn't mix.

If you can offer any alternate theory that fits that description, I'll be impressed.  So far no one has been able to do it (and that includes Nibley).

I have to agree with Cinepro.

There are some verses related to skin color in the Book of Mormon that could possibly be interpreted literally or figuratively.

But there are others, such as the one Cinepro cites, that cannot reasonably be interpreted as anything other than a literal changing of the skin color.

This literal understanding was so prevalent a few decades back that Spencer W. Kimball, if memory serves, predicted that Navajo children placed in white LDS families would ultimately have their skin color lightened as a result.

I think it is all to the good if current readers of the Book of Mormon choose to interpret such passages figuratively.  That is a step in the right direction.

But choosing to interpret such passages figuratively does not change the fact that a literal meaning is obviously intended by the plain language of such passages as written.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, busybee said:

The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches do not have a lay clergy that could have caused cultural difficulties for those involved. I do not believe that the RLDS church ever had a significant presence in Africa.

As of 2006, the RLDS Church (Community of Christ) had 25,000 members in Africa, and that includes an African Apostle from Zambia.  Your comment on the Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy is just silly.  In fact, the LDS priesthood ban was the primary problem with any mission to black Africa, so that when Pres McKay wanted  to lift the ban and begin formal missions to black Africa, he was stymied only by the lack of a revelation to end it (insisted upon by Council of the Twelve Pres Joseph Fielding Smith).

I actually don't expect anyone who has no experience of living Africa during that era to understand. It is a very unique continent.

You might be very interested to see what had happened to Catholic and Protestant doctrines in Africa during that time. They had become deeply intermingled with tribal traditions etc. I remember, as a child, witnessing groups of Protestant worshippers running around (outdoors) in a large circle beating the hell (literally) out of each other. In the innocence of childhood we used to call them devil chasers.

Black African members and clergy are often the most civilized Christians you will ever meet on this planet, Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu being a prime example -- in the midst of long colonial suppression, enslavement, and murder of the Blacks, along with exploitation of every possible resource from that rich continent by and for the sole benefit of whites.  It turns out that the white people were by far and away the most rapacious and uncivilized occupiers of the African continent, and this often remains the case today.

You cannot give people what we believe to be God's authority without guidance and mentoring in the proper use of that authority. Or do you suggest we should have conferred the Priesthood on the Black people and then let them get on with it? Politics and social structure, at the time, made it almost impossible to give the guidance and mentoring required. In South Africa the only white people who were allowed to enter the black locations were government officials on government business. It was an awful time to live through. 

The horrific racism and mistreatment of blacks in South Africa is legendary now, and it was indeed an awful time to live through, in which police were permitted to torture and murder with impunity.  You might want to ask yourself what might have been the result if the colonial whites had bothered to treat blacks as fellow humans -- had they set a Christian example, such as that of Dr. David Livingstone or Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

 

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

This mystifies me.  I can only ask you the same thing I've asked others who suggest this isn't describing a literal change in skin color.  Please outline any theory that you feel makes sense for these verses:

1. Specifically, in verse 6, if "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" isn't referring to their actual dermis, what is it referring to? 

2. Now, take whatever explanation you suggest and test it against verse 8, in which we are told that this "dark skin" was done so that the "seed" (i.e. descendants) of Laman and Lemuel could be "distinguished" from the descendants of the Nephites and they wouldn't mix.

If you can offer any alternate theory that fits that description, I'll be impressed.  So far no one has been able to do it (and that includes Nibley).

I could have sworn I answered this before....but i'll keep it short (or try to at least) and outline. i'm numbering it to make it easier

1. Overall the "skins" are representative of a severely fallen/cut off nature. Similar phraseology is used to described them in both the BoM and the bible using different terms. For example i mentioned JST Gen 9:30 which described a dark veil being cast over Canaan. You can see this in 1 Nephi 11 and 12 and 15....where a whiteness and darkness motif is mentioned throughout and the state od the wicked is described in 1 Ne 12:23. Instead of skin though, they describe mists and garments in these passages. In others it included scales, actual amount of light (phrases like sitting in darkness or coming out of darkness), clouds, and countenance. Alma 19:6 and Alma 26:3 have descriptions of what it looks like to have that removed. It's a shorthand for what happens when we leave the Light of God. We lose our place with the righteous, take on false traditions, increase in violence, partake in corrupted practices, and lose sight of our divine purpose. The severe cut off and several of the symbols used infer to me not a simple loss of light but removal from covenants and the covenant people. In 2 nephi 5 it was a singular skin that fell over the lamanites or a uniform separation...this is later described as "skins."  So to me it indicates being in varying forms/degrees of darkness but still being overall in the dark (think of scriptural descriptors of the telestial kingdom). The text mentions some of the obvious indications of a cultural cut-off in Alma 3:4-5. 

2. Traditions/culture transmit over time. In the scriptures they describe both a gospel-centered culture and one that is satan-led. The satan led one usually entails patterns of power dominance and lower-class serving model, violence, gender disparity, and denial of God to some degree. The gospel-centered culture entails greater respect among genders, united families, power sharing and leader-service model, peace, God/covenant-centered, and a respect/gratitude toward life,. I especially appreciation moses 5-7 for giving a good (short) picture of this. But the BoM playacts this experience again and again.

 The physical indications for who were the Lamanites were really apparent (described in 4-5). There's no way you could have missed them in comparison to Nephite/israelite customs and expectations. They had lost their cultural identity, incorporated a culture that directly conflicts with nephite culture and especially gospel-centered living, probably had a corrupted tongue at this point, and very distinctly do not carry the emblems of the covenants. They were very very distinguishable. You can't escape the inevitable degradation of beliefs and actions (or in the words of alma 3 condemnation and destruction) that come when one stops/is cut-off from following a gospel-oriented life. And to the righteous it is not a palatable existence and is a big hindrance. For the Nephites, by their descriptions, it would have probably looked like sliding into savage carnality and backwards living. This experience is also easily transmitted to the next generation, will inevitably happen to oneself when one marries/alligns oneself to such a community, and will go further with one's children as they become entrenched into said culture. And it's also just as quickly removed through repentance. Which fits the perameters of said curse/mark pretty dang well.

In short the mark wasn't one specific thing, but a series of customs and behaviors deemed false and/or antithetical to the gospel and Nephite ways that would at times manifest itself in physical presentation (shorn heads, public nudity, red markings, etc). The Amlicites were blatantly mocking this in open rebellion of Nephite traditions.

 

So I suck at short...

With luv,

BD  

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, bdouglas said:

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.

I gave a point, not because I agree with the idea of spin (to me, the idea that it's actual skin color is also spin, it was just one that was accepted early on), but because I can empathize. I still strongly remember realizing my (white) mother believed the curse of ham as a teen and so did my brother....this was long before the gospel topics article. She tried to explain it to me twice but i wasn't having it. It had been introduced to me online through anti-mormons and it felt so stupid and wrong that I laughed it off and figured my mom would too. it was horrifying to realize she really did believe it and that many people believed it.  

13 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I wonder why the Lamanites who were converted through the ministry sons of Mosiah understood they were born under a curse, yet for some reason they didn't allow the curse to define who they were; nor did they allow the curse to produce negative self-perceptions that unavoidably hinder dynamic spiritual growth? Rather than allow the curse to generate inferiority complexes within their hearts and minds, these wonderful Lamanites just laid the curse aside, like so much excess baggage, and by means of living-faith boldly moved forward in personal holiness and spirituality until their righteousness rivaled that of even the most faithful Nephites. Great faith in Christ obliterates all the barriers that stand in the way of obtaining a positive self-image, and because of him there is no valid reason to grovel in the dust with low self-esteem. All things, including curses, can be successfully overcome through faith in Christ.

Bobbie, for once I mostly agree with you. Unfortunately this falls short for me and isn't really a comfort, because I can't overcome my skin color through faith. I will never be full white. I don't actually want to be either. And as a brown child, now adult, this is slim comfort due to the very painful implications that reading versus about how my darker tone could be seen as loathsome and that removing said loathsomeness came not from repentance of Nephites getting over some poor prejudice but the Lamanites turning white and ergo beautiful/acceptable to the Nephites....it's just not helpful. And tying it to my brown body and my brown experience has terrible implications and discomforting parallels to the worst social experiences i have had and the terrible racist ideologies of which fragments still of it still exist.

 

With luv,

BD   

Edited February 4, 2016 by BlueDreams

[bdouglas]

34 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I gave a point, not because I agree with the idea of spin (to me, the idea that it's actual skin color is also spin, it was just one that was accepted early on), but because I can empathize. I still strongly remember realizing my (white) mother believed the curse of ham as a teen and so did my brother....this was long before the gospel topics article. She tried to explain it to me twice but i wasn't having it. It had been introduced to me online through anti-mormons and it felt so stupid and wrong that I laughed it off and figured my mom would too. it was horrifying to realize she really did believe it and that many people believed it.  

With luv,

BD   

Thanks for taking time to reply.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

My mind is not made up. I guess it was your "get over it" comment that set me off some.   I am open to your ideas until you out then out as if that is what the leaders of Mormonism teach.   Then I draw a line in the sand.

 

[busybee]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You can state all the googled facts you like. My husband was a police officer. There was no rampant 'murder' and torture . There was, what any country would consider, a civil war in process in South Africa. The cruellest acts were perpetrated by the Black people on their own people. They would put a car tyre filled with petrol around the necks of opponents (usually branded as police informer) and set the petrol alight in a process which became known as necklacing. Or they would throw rocks at a person and literally crush their skulls with heavy rocks. Would you like me to continue There was, and still is, more black-on-black violence then any other kind of violence. The tribes have always had discord amongst them. They still do till today. 

 

 I admitted that apartheid was an evil system but please, go ahead and tell me what my country was like while I lived there. It is very enlightening. I enjoy it as much as I enjoy people telling me what I believe.

[cinepro]

On 2/3/2016 at 0:17 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I could have sworn I answered this before....but i'll keep it short (or try to at least) and outline. i'm numbering it to make it easier

1. Overall the "skins" are representative of a severely fallen/cut off nature. Similar phraseology is used to described them in both the BoM and the bible using different terms. For example i mentioned JST Gen 9:30 which described a dark veil being cast over Canaan. You can see this in 1 Nephi 11 and 12 and 15....where a whiteness and darkness motif is mentioned throughout and the state od the wicked is described in 1 Ne 12:23. Instead of skin though, they describe mists and garments in these passages. In others it included scales, actual amount of light (phrases like sitting in darkness or coming out of darkness), clouds, and countenance. Alma 19:6 and Alma 26:3 have descriptions of what it looks like to have that removed. It's a shorthand for what happens when we leave the Light of God. We lose our place with the righteous, take on false traditions, increase in violence, partake in corrupted practices, and lose sight of our divine purpose. The severe cut off and several of the symbols used infer to me not a simple loss of light but removal from covenants and the covenant people. In 2 nephi 5 it was a singular skin that fell over the lamanites or a uniform separation...this is later described as "skins."  So to me it indicates being in varying forms/degrees of darkness but still being overall in the dark (think of scriptural descriptors of the telestial kingdom). The text mentions some of the obvious indications of a cultural cut-off in Alma 3:4-5. 

2. Traditions/culture transmit over time. In the scriptures they describe both a gospel-centered culture and one that is satan-led. The satan led one usually entails patterns of power dominance and lower-class serving model, violence, gender disparity, and denial of God to some degree. The gospel-centered culture entails greater respect among genders, united families, power sharing and leader-service model, peace, God/covenant-centered, and a respect/gratitude toward life,. I especially appreciation moses 5-7 for giving a good (short) picture of this. But the BoM playacts this experience again and again.

 The physical indications for who were the Lamanites were really apparent (described in 4-5). There's no way you could have missed them in comparison to Nephite/israelite customs and expectations. They had lost their cultural identity, incorporated a culture that directly conflicts with nephite culture and especially gospel-centered living, probably had a corrupted tongue at this point, and very distinctly do not carry the emblems of the covenants. They were very very distinguishable. You can't escape the inevitable degradation of beliefs and actions (or in the words of alma 3 condemnation and destruction) that come when one stops/is cut-off from following a gospel-oriented life. And to the righteous it is not a palatable existence and is a big hindrance. For the Nephites, by their descriptions, it would have probably looked like sliding into savage carnality and backwards living. This experience is also easily transmitted to the next generation, will inevitably happen to oneself when one marries/alligns oneself to such a community, and will go further with one's children as they become entrenched into said culture. And it's also just as quickly removed through repentance. Which fits the perameters of said curse/mark pretty dang well.

In short the mark wasn't one specific thing, but a series of customs and behaviors deemed false and/or antithetical to the gospel and Nephite ways that would at times manifest itself in physical presentation (shorn heads, public nudity, red markings, etc). The Amlicites were blatantly mocking this in open rebellion of Nephite traditions.

 

So I suck at short...

With luv,

BD  

 

Not to belabor the issue, but you simply aren't addressing my question.  You are talking about everything but what I have asked.  I have no doubt you're sincere, so I don't know if this is just a huge blind spot for you. 

I understand the scope and breadth of language used in the scriptures, including the ways that culture can influence the way we should read things.  But the explanations you are offering simply don't fit for Alma 3:6-8.  Those verses are not talking about a metaphorical "darkness" or choices that the Lamanites had made (because you can't distinguish the descendants of one people from another using a metaphor).

 

Heck, let's see if we can even have it make sense with the closest revision we can muster.  Let's theorize that the "skins" being referred to were not the actual skins of the people, but were instead referring to the leather clothes they wore that were made from animal skins.  Thus, we still have a physical property, but it's not a racist one.  It's not a big shift, so let's see if that works:

 

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

 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God [made their leather clothes darker],yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

 8 And [their leather clothes were made darker] that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

Alma 3

So it might be able to make sense until verse 8, at which point we are expected to believe that because Laman and Lemuel were given dark leather clothes, their descendants could be easily identified and avoided by the Nephite descendants.  That just doesn't work (especially compared to the original meaning of a genetically inherited darkening of the skin, which fits perfectly).

If you have an alternate reading that you think makes sense, then please do what I did and put it in brackets in verses 6 - 8 and we'll test it as well.

 

[Calm]

Quote

 

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

 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God [made their spiritual/cultural nature more apparent], yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

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

 

I don't see it as problematic myself (assuming this is what BD means, she can correct me if I have erred as I am not paying as close attention today as I should, lots of distraction).

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, busybee said:

You can state all the googled facts you like. My husband was a police officer. There was no rampant 'murder' and torture . There was, what any country would consider, a civil war in process in South Africa. The cruellest acts were perpetrated by the Black people on their own people. They would put a car tyre filled with petrol around the necks of opponents (usually branded as police informer) and set the petrol alight in a process which became known as necklacing. Or they would throw rocks at a person and literally crush their skulls with heavy rocks. Would you like me to continue There was, and still is, more black-on-black violence then any other kind of violence. The tribes have always had discord amongst them. They still do till today. 

 I admitted that apartheid was an evil system but please, go ahead and tell me what my country was like while I lived there. It is very enlightening. I enjoy it as much as I enjoy people telling me what I believe.

I lived through and actively participated in the civil rights movement in the USA, heard all the lies that White Southerners could tell about how good they were to the ignorant black folk (just as they had justified the purposeful enslavement and suppression of black people for centuries).  The police in the deep South in the USA as well as in South Africa were the most immediate instruments of torture and murder of black folk (and of any white civil rights workers).  I have heard all the possible excuses for this (tribalism, the immoral and criminal nature of blacks -- even hearing about it from white South Africans talking to me about the "kaffirs," never willing to own up to their responsibility for suppressing black efforts at civilized conduct and achievement.  Apartheid was not only evil, it was a bestial and systematic method for preventing civilized behavior among blacks.  The high crime rate in South Africa today is a direct result of systematic racism.  The same is true of the inner city in America generally.  White folk often deny their responsibility for that legacy, but the chickens will always come home to roost.  Pretending that it never happened, or blaming the victim just doesn't get it.  We need to call "evil" by its real name.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Not to belabor the issue, but you simply aren't addressing my question.  You are talking about everything but what I have asked.  I have no doubt you're sincere, so I don't know if this is just a huge blind spot for you. 

I understand the scope and breadth of language used in the scriptures, including the ways that culture can influence the way we should read things.  But the explanations you are offering simply don't fit for Alma 3:6-8.  Those verses are not talking about a metaphorical "darkness" or choices that the Lamanites had made (because you can't distinguish the descendants of one people from another using a metaphor).

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

I appreciate your perplexed response to BD, but is it at all possible that you have blinders on, or have tunnel vision in this matter?  I can find a nearly endless list of texts which seem to have one plain meaning, but which actually mean something else.  Readers often miss the point, as children often do when reading something from which an adult might find a very different meaning -- as though there are truly layers of meaning.  Do I really need to present examples?

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't see it as problematic myself (assuming this is what BD means, she can correct me if I have erred as I am not paying as close attention today as I should, lots of distraction).

Yes, that's what I mean. 

 

[BlueDreams]

Quote

 

Not to belabor the issue, but you simply aren't addressing my question.  You are talking about everything but what I have asked.  I have no doubt you're sincere, so I don't know if this is just a huge blind spot for you. 

I understand the scope and breadth of language used in the scriptures, including the ways that culture can influence the way we should read things.  But the explanations you are offering simply don't fit for Alma 3:6-8.  Those verses are not talking about a metaphorical "darkness" or choices that the Lamanites had made (because you can't distinguish the descendants of one people from another using a metaphor).

 

 

 

Cinepro, do you remember the analogy I made about these?:

That feels about where we're at right now. I can't think of another way I could feasibly describe this to you so that you could see the picture I do....any more than people tell me there's a dang 3d image in these things and yet I can stare for hours and won't see anything. The explanations do fit, you just don't see them. On the old thread that Jeremy linked to, there wasn't just one but a number of people who stated they don't see it the literalist way. A number of those had a similar trait: they were converts/had a different cultural background. So it changed the picture drastically.  

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Heck, let's see if we can even have it make sense with the closest revision we can muster.  Let's theorize that the "skins" being referred to were not the actual skins of the people, but were instead referring to the leather clothes they wore that were made from animal skins.  Thus, we still have a physical property, but it's not a racist one.  It's not a big shift, so let's see if that works:

So it might be able to make sense until verse 8, at which point we are expected to believe that because Laman and Lemuel were given dark leather clothes, their descendants could be easily identified and avoided by the Nephite descendants.  That just doesn't work (especially compared to the original meaning of a genetically inherited darkening of the skin, which fits perfectly).

If you have an alternate reading that you think makes sense, then please do what I did and put it in brackets in verses 6 - 8 and we'll test it as well.

You're missing the boat entirely on this one. I don't see it as a literal animal skin at all. I don't see it as a literal, tangible object in the least (though it may have emblems that the Nephites took as indicative of their lost state....such as red marks and little clothes). Cal hit it pretty dang close to how I would describe it....I may have put more "customs" or "culture" in there and  I may also have mark also equal = cut off from Godly knowledge/privileges or something like that... but at that point it's just wording preferences.

I would also add, in my experience, cultural distinctions are easily identified, particularly if they are stark....the more divided and distinctive they are, the more apparent they are on the outside...and they travel down to descendants.   

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 5, 2016 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

On 2/3/2016 at 0:27 PM, 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. 

I've kinda been hesitant to discuss this point....but this really doesn't work. Missionaries were also sent to Polynesian nations which could easily be described with similar challenges. It wouldn't have been impossible and there may have been regions that it would have done well in earlier on....such as ghana. Besides it wouldn't have been the first area that the starting of the church there was slow or even stopped for long periods of time. it's just not a solid explanation because we have plenty of parallel cases elsewhere....plus it feels like you're lumping all black Africans way to strongly together as one. It's as if you're describing one solid african culture when there have alway been several very distinctive peoples.

 I won't get into your post about your country....but I would say that it may not be an entirely fair view...or at least a full one. No offense, but you're from a privileged group in S. Africa and your husband is just one cop. The view point may be a little different to the black africans and the coloured communities there.   

 

With luv,

BD

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I gave a point, not because I agree with the idea of spin (to me, the idea that it's actual skin color is also spin, it was just one that was accepted early on), but because I can empathize. I still strongly remember realizing my (white) mother believed the curse of ham as a teen and so did my brother....this was long before the gospel topics article. She tried to explain it to me twice but i wasn't having it. It had been introduced to me online through anti-mormons and it felt so stupid and wrong that I laughed it off and figured my mom would too. it was horrifying to realize she really did believe it and that many people believed it.  

Bobbie, for once I mostly agree with you. Unfortunately this falls short for me and isn't really a comfort, because I can't overcome my skin color through faith. I will never be full white. I don't actually want to be either. And as a brown child, now adult, this is slim comfort due to the very painful implications that reading versus about how my darker tone could be seen as loathsome and that removing said loathsomeness came not from repentance of Nephites getting over some poor prejudice but the Lamanites turning white and ergo beautiful/acceptable to the Nephites....it's just not helpful. And tying it to my brown body and my brown experience has terrible implications and discomforting parallels to the worst social experiences i have had and the terrible racist ideologies of which fragments still of it still exist.

 

With luv,

BD   

Then the only substantive difference between you and the converted Lamanites is that had faith sufficient to totally throw off  he burdens of the curse from their shoulderss. They heaved mightily and caused those burdens to crash down upon the ground in ruin, once and for all. By turning their hearts, minds and spirits fully to Christ, and ignoring the seductive and deceitful gravitational pull of the world, they rose up and laid claim to their rightful inheritance as the beloved and glorious sons and daughters of God. The only thing that remains standing in the way is doubt, but the Savior encourages us to "doubt not but be believing." The Lamanite converts to the preaching of the sons of Mosiah proved such mighty change is possible. So throw off the useless burdens you have allowed to define you and rise up to claim your glorious inheritance, guaranteed through the infinite and eternal sacrifice of your omnipotent conquering Savior. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

Are you suggesting that if BD has enough faith she can turn herself white (or God will do it for her)?

Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Then the only substantive difference between you and the converted Lamanites is that had faith sufficient to totally throw off  he burdens of the curse from their shoulderss. They heaved mightily and caused those burdens to crash down upon the ground in ruin, once and for all. By turning their hearts, minds and spirits fully to Christ, and ignoring the seductive and deceitful gravitational pull of the world, they rose up and laid claim to their rightful inheritance as the beloved and glorious sons and daughters of God. The only thing that remains standing in the way is doubt, but the Savior encourages us to "doubt not but be believing." The Lamanite converts to the preaching of the sons of Mosiah proved such mighty change is possible. So throw off the useless burdens you have allowed to define you and rise up to claim your glorious inheritance, guaranteed through the infinite and eternal sacrifice of your omnipotent conquering Savior. 

This is one of the most racist and demeaning posts I have seen on this board.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Then the only substantive difference between you and the converted Lamanites is that had faith sufficient to totally throw off  he burdens of the curse from their shoulderss. They heaved mightily and caused those burdens to crash down upon the ground in ruin, once and for all. By turning their hearts, minds and spirits fully to Christ, and ignoring the seductive and deceitful gravitational pull of the world, they rose up and laid claim to their rightful inheritance as the beloved and glorious sons and daughters of God. The only thing that remains standing in the way is doubt, but the Savior encourages us to "doubt not but be believing." The Lamanite converts to the preaching of the sons of Mosiah proved such mighty change is possible. So throw off the useless burdens you have allowed to define you and rise up to claim your glorious inheritance, guaranteed through the infinite and eternal sacrifice of your omnipotent conquering Savior. 

I keep coming back to this, trying to find a softer way of putting it. Cal and Juliann both summed up a number of my thoughts. But I still want to say a couple things:

1. I pray that these are things you never have the opportunity to say to a minority youth ever. It isn't helpful and reminds me of the idea that ones attitude towards others could become a stumbling block for them.

2. You do not know me from Eve and you move well beyond your authority and capacity to proclaim my level of faith or its sufficiency or my "burdens" or my level of "doubt"....or anything about me and my standing before my Maker. That is not yours to judge or to direct. 

3. in case your answer to Cal is yes, please re-read #1. And I would add on that such a horrifying belief is terribly and irreparably racist. There is nothing redeemable about it and to feed or even infer such a vile idea to anyone would likely leave someone impressionable or seeking help to lose a healthy sense of themselves and feasibly gain an inferiority complex.

4. In case you're saying something not directly to my skin color but about my capacity to "let go" or "get over" or "throw of the burdens" of systemic racism in our society, social injustices, or "victimhood" (whatever that is).... Again, you have apparently judged me not on the content of my actual character but on your own set of prejudices, preconceived notions about me, and misgivings to race issues. Also re-reread 1. Also this is not a parallel. This isn't my sin and tradition of cursed lineage to bare or be held accountable to. I am not cursed for being brown. I am not cursed for other's problems with instances of racism, or moment of rejection or struggle that comes from living in a white dominated society. I do not need to fix me and cast off my God-given differences to fit a majority expectation for acceptability and sense of proper. I am fair and beautiful and lovely in the sight of God and I could care less if someone else has the misguided assumption that my life is somehow in plight, my conversion is lacking, or that noting injustices and endemic problems mean i'm playing some victim card or diminishing myself or am somehow lost because my experience doesn't fit their expectations.

5. The Lamanites didn't "rival" the nephites in righteousness. They quite often surpassed it and their distinctive journey (anti-nephi-lehites in particular) gave them the capacity to care for those that had little place. Thye remained a distinct people with a distinct call and capacity not inspite of their past but because of it. And God made it good.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

[busybee]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

. Apartheid was not only evil, it was a bestial and systematic method for preventing civilized behavior among blacks.  The high crime rate in South Africa today is a direct result of systematic racism.  The same is true of the inner city in America generally.  White folk often deny their responsibility for that legacy, but the chickens will always come home to roost.  Pretending that it never happened, or blaming the victim just doesn't get it.  We need to call "evil" by its real name.

Is that why there is still rampant black-on black violence? What is preventing civil behaviour now, 22 years after the end of that awful system. (And before you cry 'racist' uncivilised behaviour is uncivilised behaviour no matter who you are) The crime in South Africa is a direct result of criminal and corrupt leaders who have set the example that taking what you want and not taking responsibility for your actions is how life works.(The president of the country has recently stolen R274 000 000, which is around $11 000 000, to upgrade his personal compound where he and his 7 or 8 wives live, while people just outside the compound live in shacks with no electricity or running water)  The view that you don't have to work for what you need and want in life and that you can just just take it, or even better, riot and destroy property until someone gives in to your demands for it is the order of the day there. That is why there are such high crime levels.

You do not have the insight you think you have. 

Blacks in South Africa were denied certain privileges,(they were also absolved from certain obligations, like paying tax and compulsory military service) but your characterization of one of the population groups of South Africa as cruel and murderous couldn't be further from the truth. Don't forget that 82% of the people in that same group voted for the end of Apartheid. and for equal treatment of all people in the country. I pray every day for a leader who will lead the country back to a place of peace and prosperity for ALL her citizens.

Edited February 5, 2016 by busybee

[Bobbieaware]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

I keep coming back to this, trying to find a softer way of putting it. Cal and Juliann both summed up a number of my thoughts. But I still want to say a couple things:

1. I pray that these are things you never have the opportunity to say to a minority youth ever. It isn't helpful and reminds me of the idea that ones attitude towards others could become a stumbling block for them.

2. You do not know me from Eve and you move well beyond your authority and capacity to proclaim my level of faith or its sufficiency or my "burdens" or my level of "doubt"....or anything about me and my standing before my Maker. That is not yours to judge or to direct. 

3. in case your answer to Cal is yes, please re-read #1. And I would add on that such a horrifying belief is terribly and irreparably racist. There is nothing redeemable about it and to feed or even infer such a vile idea to anyone would likely leave someone impressionable or seeking help to lose a healthy sense of themselves and feasibly gain an inferiority complex.

4. In case you're saying something not directly to my skin color but about my capacity to "let go" or "get over" or "throw of the burdens" of systemic racism in our society, social injustices, or "victimhood" (whatever that is).... Again, you have apparently judged me not on the content of my actual character but on your own set of prejudices, preconceived notions about me, and misgivings to race issues. Also re-reread 1. Also this is not a parallel. This isn't my sin and tradition of cursed lineage to bare or be held accountable to. I am not cursed for being brown. I am not cursed for other's problems with instances of racism, or moment of rejection or struggle that comes from living in a white dominated society. I do not need to fix me and cast off my God-given differences to fit a majority expectation for acceptability and sense of proper. I am fair and beautiful and lovely in the sight of God and I could care less if someone else has the misguided assumption that my life is somehow in plight, my conversion is lacking, or that noting injustices and endemic problems mean i'm playing some victim card or diminishing myself or am somehow lost because my experience doesn't fit their expectations.

5. The Lamanites didn't "rival" the nephites in righteousness. They quite often surpassed it and their distinctive journey (anti-nephi-lehites in particular) gave them the capacity to care for those that had little place. Thye remained a distinct people with a distinct call and capacity not inspite of their past but because of it. And God made it good.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

i thought you said you mostly agreed with my previous post, which basically expresses the exact same thoughts as the post with which you now take major exception. Yes, I thought you indicated what I had to say was good advise but that at this time you feel you are too tethered to the resentments you hold to follow through on the example of the Lamanite converts and, like them, just let all the spiritually-debilitating negativity go. This is why I said you just need a little more faith to follow the Lamanites' wonderful example of Christian discipleship. 

But as a free-agent you are free to ignore my sincere, Gospel-oriented testimony that you have the God-given freedom to choose, once and for all, to let go of any bitterness and resentment and as a begotten daughter of Christ claim your glorious deliverence from that bitterness and resentment through our Savior who said "with God, all things are possible."

  Anyway, I'm not saying anything new here because the Savior rose above the very same kind of debilitating thinking himself, and commands all who embrace his Gospel to come and follow him. By following the example of the Savior, the Lamanite converts were able to do rise above the persistent enmity that is forever a dominantimg component of the fallen nature; and in spite of long centuries of the bitter estrangement and prejudice that existed between between the Nephites and the Lamanites, they were both able to throw off the shackles that at one time seemed impossible to break.

If we want the greater the society outside of the Church to change, then we as Latter-day Saints we must set the example and first change our own hearts and minds through the power of Christ; we must set shinning examples of true Christlike love and reconciliation for all the world to see (and admire). My favorite verse of scripture is Paul's stirring Christian battle cry to the Galatians saints, " I can do all things through Christ, which strengtheneth me" I hope you'll excuse me if I really believe him. And if, as Juliann says, these are the rankings of a hateful racist, all I can say is that we must be living in parallel universes.

Poster suspended. Do not address sermons to other posters. Do not engage in racism.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, busybee said:

Is that why there is still rampant black-on black violence? What is preventing civil behaviour now, 22 years after the end of that awful system. (And before you cry 'racist' uncivilised behaviour is uncivilised behaviour no matter who you are) The crime in South Africa is a direct result of criminal and corrupt leaders who have set the example that taking what you want and not taking responsibility for your actions is how life works.(The president of the country has recently stolen R274 000 000, which is around $11 000 000, to upgrade his personal compound where he and his 7 or 8 wives live, while people just outside the compound live in shacks with no electricity or running water)  The view that you don't have to work for what you need and want in life and that you can just just take it, or even better, riot and destroy property until someone gives in to your demands for it is the order of the day there. That is why there are such high crime levels.

You do not have the insight you think you have. 

Blacks in South Africa were denied certain privileges,(they were also absolved from certain obligations, like paying tax and compulsory military service) but your characterization of one of the population groups of South Africa as cruel and murderous couldn't be further from the truth. Don't forget that 82% of the people in that same group voted for the end of Apartheid. and for equal treatment of all people in the country. I pray every day for a leader who will lead the country back to a place of peace and prosperity for ALL her citizens.

The black people in South Africa (and in most other parts of Africa) learned a great deal from their white overlords -- a people who came in and took whatever they wanted and killed those who opposed them.  No one is suggesting that black people are automatically nicer than white people, since people are pretty much the same everywhere on the planet.  The British Empire was poorly administered from the point of view of anyone who believes that all people have equal rights (which was the key reason for the American Revolution), and the Boers of South Africa were particularly insensitive to human rights, leaving a legacy of shame nearly as great as Nazism (with which they had natural affinity).  There was, after all, very little likelihood that the attitude of white South African police officers could be high-minded or fair while they were beating the pacifist Mohandas K. Gandhi (a British-trained barrister working in South Africa, who would go on to free India from the British Raj).

You sadly lack a sense of perspective in history, politics, or sociology so far as the fully evil nature of white administrations of the Republic of South Africa is concerned.  You speak only of the evil of black administrations, forgetting where those black leaders learned their organized criminal misconduct.  Generations of white totalitarian dictators preceded them, men who allowed murder and mayhem on a vast scale.  You should be ashamed of those leaders and anxious to atone for their sinful behavior.  Ah, but you have "Reconciliation" for well-known murderers.  White murderers get off scot free.