Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

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?

Okay, I'm typing very slowly now to be extra clear:

I don't need "examples".  I just need you to clearly say what you think Alma 3:6-8 is referring to.  If you are saying that you think it's a metaphor, then is this how you read it?

 

 6 And the [metaphorical]skins of the Lamanites were [metaphorically]dark, [meaning that they were choosing to be wicked], according to the [metaphorical]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 [metaphorical]mark upon them, [which wasn't an actual physical change, but a metaphorical one], 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 [by the Nephites understanding that the Lamanites had been metaphorically marked, but with no actual physical change that they could see], that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

If that is what you are trying to say, I'm sorry but I don't think it makes much sense.  If that isn't what you are trying to say, then don't provide examples or allusions to other scriptures.  Just say "I think 'skins were dark' in v.4 means this ____________ ."  I don't think you can do it an have it still make sense, but give it a shot.

[juliann]

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.

I am sure you have a great deal of insight having lived there. But it is very difficult to see past this rhetoric when much of it is no different than what was used to justify slavery. The book that helped me stop blaming the victims of long time oppression for not recovering fast enough was Raboteau's classic book Slave Religion.   

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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

I don't need "examples".  I just need you to clearly say what you think Alma 3:6-8 is referring to.  If you are saying that you think it's a metaphor, then is this how you read it?

If that is what you are trying to say, I'm sorry but I don't think it makes much sense.  If that isn't what you are trying to say, then don't provide examples or allusions to other scriptures.  Just say "I think 'skins were dark' in v.4 means this ____________ ."  I don't think you can do it an have it still make sense, but give it a shot.

It would have helped a lot if you had responded early on to the specific comments of Carnevale, Nibley, and Sorenson.  That, applied to the overall BofM context (or intratext), could have clarified for you what your problem is in seeing only one plain meaning (and you are not alone in doing so, as you yourself point out).  And it still can clarify it for you, but you at least must make the effort.  It does me no good to do all your work for you.  I supplied quotes and an excellent bibliography.  If you are going to reject all that, at least reject it for cause.  Please, cinepro.

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It would have helped a lot if you had responded early on to the specific comments of Carnevale, Nibley, and Sorenson.  That, applied to the overall BofM context (or intratext), could have clarified for you what your problem is in seeing only one plain meaning (and you are not alone in doing so, as you yourself point out).  And it still can clarify it for you, but you at least must make the effort.  It does me no good to do all your work for you.  I supplied quotes and an excellent bibliography.  If you are going to reject all that, at least reject it for cause.  Please, cinepro.

Just to be clear, you're saying that you can't explain any alternate readings for Alma 3:6-8 that don't fit the context of it being an actual skin change?  The sources you cited don't actually address this issue, and now it appears that you're trying to obfuscate by throwing out unrelated sources.  Explaining your claim isn't "doing work" for someone, it's simple due diligence in having a conversation and arguing for an alternate reading. 

To be clear, the first quote suggested that the "dark skin" was due to lack of good hygiene, which does not fit the text of v.6-8 (if you think it does, go ahead and show how).  The Nibley quote totally ignores v.6-8, and how explicitly the mark on the forehead is distinguished from the dark skin.  The Sorenson quote simply argues that the "dark skin" probably wasn't a result of intermixing with existing natives, since the dark skin is attributed to Laman and Lemuel (which actually supports the clear reading of Alma 3:6-8, where God caused the dark skin, not intermixing).

Edited February 5, 2016 by cinepro

[busybee]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Oh please! I am not going to respond to you any more. When you have lived in South Africa for 40 years you can lecture me as to how things were and are in the country.

 

[busybee]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

I am sure you have a great deal of insight having lived there. But it is very difficult to see past this rhetoric when much of it is no different than what was used to justify slavery. The book that helped me stop blaming the victims of long time oppression for not recovering fast enough was Raboteau's classic book Slave Religion.   

I think the big difference between the two situations is that in the US the slaves were a minority group. The black people of Africa have never been part of a minority. There was no reason for them being in the situation that they were other than the lack of good leadership and skills at the time. How would you otherwise explain how a part of 8% of the population managed to bring the other 92% into subjugation.  I am glad that Apartheid era ended. But sad that it now virtually exists in reverse. Sadly, Nelson Mandela's legacy has been crushed underfoot by those who followed him as the country's leaders. The President of the day has a 4th grade education and can barely put a coherent sentence together, but boy, does he know how to steal money from his people, and employ all his buddies in high positions with no qualifications at ridiculous overinflated salaries, and dodge criminal charges of rape (amongst others). Unemployment and poverty statistics are the highest they have EVER been. Education is in tatters because it serves his purpose to keep the masses uneducated so that they don't realize how corrupt he and his government are

I pray for the day that the pendulum comes to rest. There is a new young black man who leads the official opposition party in the country who gives me great hope for my beautiful home. He speaks 7 languages, has two doctorate degrees, one as a Doctor of Divinity and loves his country as much as I do.

Edited February 5, 2016 by busybee

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, busybee said:

I think the big difference between the two situations is that in the US the slaves were a minority group. The black people of Africa have never been part of a minority. There was no reason for them being in the situation that they were other than the lack of good leadership and skills at the time. How would you otherwise explain how a part of 8% of the population managed to bring the other 92% into subjugation.  I am glad that Apartheid era ended. But sad that it now virtually exists in reverse. Sadly, Nelson Mandela's legacy has been crushed underfoot by those who followed him as the country's leaders. The President of the day has a 4th grade education and can barely put a coherent sentence together, but boy, does he know how to steal money from his people, and employ all his buddies in high positions with no qualifications at ridiculous overinflated salaries, and dodge criminal charges of rape (amongst others). Unemployment and poverty statistics are the highest they have EVER been. Education is in tatters because it serves his purpose to keep the masses uneducated so that they don't realize how corrupt he and his government are

I pray for the day that the pendulum comes to rest. There is a new young black man who leads the official opposition party in the country who gives me great hope for my beautiful home. He speaks 7 languages, has two doctorate degrees, one as a Doctor of Divinity and loves his country as much as I do.

Here's one of my favorite videos on the subjecT:

 

 

It talks a lot about the effect in both the Americas and Africa as well. Basically intitial african kingdoms were severely destabilized and launched violent arms races that altered stable societies for the worse. 

Though in the U.S. blacks make a minority (around 13-14%) they are often clustered in certain areas. Where they are most clustered the areas have become rundown...in large part because the social structure has left them with few resources, those that do succeed in areas in these regions often leave for greener pastures, and any efforts to improve these areas often meet an uphill battle for both endemic problems in the community and external pressures limiting. 

20 years is simply not enough time to change the course of nearly an entire nation that was oppressed by a regime that left most of them with little education, minimal/no access to higher paying offices and work space, and exacerbated divisions, both prior to apartheid's end and in the process of ending it. I won't pretend to know much about S. African. I've read a little here and there about it and started reading more when you brought things up. But I did minor in international development and have an innate curiosity with social issues in general. So I guessed that inspite of political changes the actual economic structure and access was probably limited. This leaves a large population with little hope for the future and that was probably already struggling with endemic problems that the oppressive system artificially supressed. Family cultures also often become isomorphic to the political and social systems. Removing said systems usually doesn't immediately lead to a peaceful existence but can lead to several decades of fluctuating instability as they work to stabilize both micro and macro systems to make more access to goods, services, and oppurtunities for larger sections of the population. From what I'm reading, it's not far off. For being 8-9% of the populations, whites still have a heavy economic and power footprint. Wealth distribution still heavily favors  whites. Land ownership is till majority white. Unemployment is most heavy among poor and black populations. And the disparities continue through the education system and healthcare access. I'm sure Government inaptitude isn't helping, but the government only has so much control over some of these issues. Abuse, violence, and murder rates are highest in areas where there's little oppurtunity, high economic stress and economic inequality, and minimal education....and that basically describes the s.African landscape, with the black population taking the brunt of it.

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

On 2/4/2016 at 3:51 PM, BlueDreams said:

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.  

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

 

For what it's worth I see it your way as well, there has to be something to this "convert" idea.  We just don't see it as "lifers" do.  

[canard78]

Ignore (there's a draft stuff in my posting box)

[Russell C McGregor]

On 1/30/2016 at 6:07 PM, cinepro said:

I think the true test of where we think the priesthood ban came from is to imagine how we would react if President Monson stood in Conference and revealed that God was instituting a new Priesthood ban, this time against people with red hair and freckles.  No reason given; God works in mysterious ways and we must have faith.

I'd be in favour of that. I'm convinced that gingas are the children of Satan. And I mean, directly; they cut out the middle-man (Cain) completely.

On 1/30/2016 at 6:07 PM, cinepro said:

The idea that God wanted to withhold the priesthood from blacks in the 19th and 20th centuries is just as preposterous.  The racism of early Church leaders and members only explains why they accepted the policy, not why God would need such a policy in the first place. 

It must be comforting to be so superior to others.

They accepted the policy because they had testimonies of the Church's primary truth claims. There were even black Latter-day Saints through all those years who accepted the Priesthood ban. Does their racism explain why they accepted it too?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 1/30/2016 at 10:29 PM, canard78 said:

It's not irrelevant mfb.

Of course it is.

On 1/30/2016 at 10:29 PM, canard78 said:

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

I can see that that's how anti-Mormons would like to exploit it.

But I'm afraid it fails that purpose.

Sorry.

And once you realise that it has no polemical utility for you, I expect you'll decide that it's irrelevant too.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 1/30/2016 at 4:39 AM, consiglieri said:

My impression from the essay is that the authors wanted to suggest it was the result of Brigham Young's culturally influenced racism. 

The story is more complicated than that, because Brigham Young actually changed his mind on the subject in the same year (1847).

There were specific things going on that appear to have caused his change of heart, but revelation is not one of them.

I have no doubt that the priesthood/temple ban on blacks was not from God.

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

Well, as an avowed apostate, you clearly don't think God has any part in anything the Church does, do you?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 1/30/2016 at 4:43 AM, consiglieri said:

Now, hold on there, Bubballooey!

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

I have to disagree with you on this.

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

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

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

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

Including President Thomas S. Monson.

Which is, of course, the only interest you anti-Mormons have in it.

You don't give a flying rat's posterior about any other aspect of it, do you?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/1/2016 at 4:08 PM, cinepro said:

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

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

 

 

 

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

You're right.

Why do you assume that the "skins" in verse 6 aren't the same as the "skins" in verse 5? Is that because you don't want them to be?

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/1/2016 at 5:07 AM, rongo said:

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

 

 

Robert F. Smith wrote:

 

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

So you think the Book of Mormon says the Lamanites were black Africans?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/1/2016 at 5:33 AM, consiglieri said:

Hi, Robert.

It is not that I attribute infallibility to the prophets.

It is that they attribute it to themselves.

Call for references, please.

Quote

And encourage the members to attribute it to themselves.

Call for references, please.

Quote

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

Thank you for admitting that you're not discussing things in good faith.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/1/2016 at 6:21 AM, consiglieri said:

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

And how would we know?

How could that possibly matter to you, given that you reject their teaching and their authority out of hand anyway?

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/3/2016 at 2:35 PM, 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

And this is relevant because...?

[cacheman]

I haven't read the whole thread, so this might have already been discussed...but I'm curious to know if those who feel the ban came from man are concerned that the church still teaches seminary students that the ban was a commandment from the Lord.  How do you interpret that?

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014?lang=eng

Lesson 157

Edited February 6, 2016 by cacheman

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

I haven't read the whole thread, so this might have already been discussed...but I'm curious to know if those who feel the ban came from man are concerned that the church still teaches seminary students that the ban was a commandment from the Lord.  How do you interpret that?

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014?lang=eng

Lesson 157

Skimmed the whole lesson.  Where exactly does it say it came from the Lord?  Did I miss it?  I believe it came from the Lord, but this lesson calls it policy and gives no divine reason for the ban.

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Call for references, please.

Call for references, please.

Thank you for admitting that you're not discussing things in good faith.

 

From an abundance of sources, let's try the following:

 

Quote

 

To help you pass the crucial tests which lie ahead, I am going to give you … a grand key which, if you will honor, will crown you with God’s glory and bring you out victorious in spite of Satan’s fury.

… As a Church we sing the hymn, “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet” [Hymns, no. 19]. Here then is the grand key—Follow the prophet. …

… The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

 

This comes from a rather famous talk by Ezra Taft Benson.  He was president of the Quorum of the Twelve when he gave it.  You may have heard of it.  It is called The 14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

It was recycled just last year in the official Church manual for Priesthood and Relief Society.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng

The ellipses are in the manual.

Who approves these manuals for use in the Church?

That would be the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

It is clear from this example alone that my assertions are correct.  Church leaders claim doctrinally infallibility for themselves and encourage members to do the same.

 

 

The question now becomes why you ask for references when you know perfectly well what I say is true?

Is it possible you are the one "not discussing things in good faith"?

 

 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Which is, of course, the only interest you anti-Mormons have in it.

I am not anti-Mormon.

I am pro-Truth.

[cacheman]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Skimmed the whole lesson.  Where exactly does it say it came from the Lord?  Did I miss it?  I believe it came from the Lord, but this lesson calls it policy and gives no divine reason for the ban.

Look for the Dallin H Oaks quote.  

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

It must be comforting to be so superior to others.

Total self-awareness fail.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Look for the Dallin H Oaks quote.  

• Official Declaration 2. Avoid attaching man-made reasons to God’s revelations

  “In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

  “‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. … I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.’

  “When asked if [he] was even referring to reasons given by General Authorities, [he] replied:

  “‘I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon … by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies’ [“Apostles Talk about Reasons for Lifting Ban,” Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, June 5, 1988, 21 (AP)]” (Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69).

Bit of a stretch to say he attributed to priesthood ban to a command from God.  But I see where you might think that.