Marginal Gains Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Such is a supposition on your part. The BoM has places where Nephites and Lamanits were indistinguishable. It seems to me that it was a religio-political designation rather than one of a skin color. There is no supposition. I’m simply referring to the plain English of 2nd Nephi. Can you show me where the Church teaches it means something other than what it says? The one making a supposition is you “It seems to me...”
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Please quote the specific portion that says blacks were told they would never be able to return to live with Heavenly Father and Jesus. 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: Like some say that the gist is Jesus in the church meetings, I say the gist is that they were told they may not go to the temple. What in our church is taught about going to the temple may I ask, and therein you have the answer. ETA:In the temple we are taught, we make covenants, and we are promised blessings. We receive ordinances that enable us to live in the presence of God. https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/10/commonly-asked-questions?lang=eng&clang=ase Sorry, but this doesn't answer my question. If you can't quote a specific portion of the Gospel Topics essay that states what you claim it does, you should admit that fact instead of doubling down. And the part you added to your post later doesn't help your argument. Obviously, temple blessings are available today to everyone who qualifies for them through personal worthiness, even those who died before the temple was accessible to them, as cdowis has pointed out. And you have thus far failed to document or substantiate your claim that, during the priesthood ban, blacks were told they would never ever have the priesthood, temple blessings, or the chance to return and live with Heavenly Father and Christ.
JarMan Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 11 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: Who is making the argument that JS wrote or spoke in KJV’esque Early Modern English as part of his normal speech and writing? How does falsifying “the argument that JS wrote or spoke in Early Modern English near the time the Book of Mormon came to be.” falsify the argument that JS (and/or others) could have written the Book of Mormon without external inspiration? There have been several people on this board (and elsewhere I presume) who have suggested the language of the Book of Mormon may have been JS's own language-that the archaic words and grammar in the book was the way he naturally spoke. I think this has been shown not to be the case with the analysis of his 1832 history. This is one of many lines of evidence that, in my mind, shows that JS didn't make it all up. Now this doesn't mean somebody else didn't make it up. The Book of Mormon could have been created in the 17th Century and preserved for a couple hundred years until it fell into Joseph Smith's hands. Or it could have been made up by a contemporary of JS. But it would have needed to be a contemporary who was an expert in Early Modern English. I suppose there are other possible explanations, as well. But to me the evidence clearly and decisively points away from JS as author.
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sorry, but this doesn't answer my question. If you can't quote a specific portion of the Gospel Topics essay that states what you claim it does, you should admit that fact instead of doubling down. And the part you added to your post later doesn't help your argument. Obviously, temple blessings are available today to everyone who qualifies for them through personal worthiness, even those who died before the temple was accessible to them, as cdowis has pointed out. And you have thus far failed to document or substantiate your claim that, during the priesthood ban, blacks were told they would never ever have the priesthood, temple blessings, or the chance to return and live with Heavenly Father and Christ. Scott: Maybe I'm reaching, but this feels bleak to me and assuming to the blacks too. I'll rescind my comment if it means we don't have to keep going the rounds. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/The_Changing_World_of_Mormonism/Chapter_10 Brigham Young said that blacks would not received the priesthood until all of Adam's other children received it, otherwise the church would be destroyed. AUTHOR'S SOURCES: BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 7:290-291. BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 2:143. BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 11:272. BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES, MS D 1234, BOX 48, FOLDER 3, DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1852, LOCATED IN THE LDS CHURCH HISTORICAL DEPT.)." FairMormon Response FACT CHECKING RESULTS: THIS CLAIM IS BASED UPON CORRECT INFORMATION - THE AUTHOR IS PROVIDING KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SOME PARTICULAR FACT, SUBJECT, OR EVENT Brigham believe this to be true.
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 4 hours ago, cdowis said: Obviously you and I got a very different answer. It is sad that you are unaware that vicarious work for the dead is done in the temple. Over the past several years we had two converts die before they could fulfill the one year requirement. I guess you think they cannot receive exaltation. I'm not unaware that we do vicarious work for the dead. But it may have skipped my mind at the moment I posted. When I would go to the temple I would indeed know I was doing the work for the dead. Thanks for the reminder. I guess in my mind I tried to put myself in the blacks shoes and think I was barred from the temple and living eternally with God. But am reminded that their work could be done. So to you and Bernard and Scott, I will recant my post.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Scott: Maybe I'm reaching, but this feels bleak to me and assuming to the blacks too. I'll rescind my comment if it means we don't have to keep going the rounds. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/The_Changing_World_of_Mormonism/Chapter_10 Brigham Young said that blacks would not received the priesthood until all of Adam's other children received it, otherwise the church would be destroyed. AUTHOR'S SOURCES: BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 7:290-291. BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 2:143. BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 11:272. BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES, MS D 1234, BOX 48, FOLDER 3, DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1852, LOCATED IN THE LDS CHURCH HISTORICAL DEPT.)." FairMormon Response FACT CHECKING RESULTS: THIS CLAIM IS BASED UPON CORRECT INFORMATION - THE AUTHOR IS PROVIDING KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SOME PARTICULAR FACT, SUBJECT, OR EVENT Brigham believe this to be true. It still doesn't substantiate your initial claim. If anything it contradicts it, with Brigham Young saying here that black Church members would one day receive the priesthood/temple blessings. In fact, I don't know of a single incident of a Church president saying the contrary.
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It still doesn't substantiate your initial claim. If anything it contradicts it, with Brigham Young saying here that black Church members would one day receive the priesthood/temple blessings. In fact, I don't know of a single incident of a Church president saying the contrary. Maybe not church presidents, but apostles may have, according to the quote below. But I'm finished and I recant my post, I shouldn't have said what I did. There are plenty of quotes that say they can in the future have the Priesthood restored. Not sure how that all works but I guess it all gets worked out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism (bold mine) Celestial marriage and exaltation[edit] "For Latter-day Saints, a celestial marriage is not required to get into the celestial kingdom, but is required to obtain a fullness of glory or exaltation within the celestial kingdom.[107]The righteous who do not have a celestial marriage would still live eternally with God, but they would be "appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants."[108] As black people were banned from entering celestial marriage prior to 1978,[32] some interpreted this to mean that they would be treated as unmarried whites, being confined to only ever live in God's presence as a ministering servant. Mark E. Petersen[67] and Apostle George F. Richards taught that blacks could not achieve exaltation because of their priesthood and temple restrictions.[109] Several leaders, including Joseph Smith,[110] Brigham Young,[111] Wilford Woodruff,[112] George Albert Smith,[113] David O. McKay,[114] Joseph Fielding Smith,[115] and Harold B. Lee[116] taught that black people would eventually be able to receive a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom."
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Maybe not church presidents, but apostles may have, according to the quote below. But I'm finished and I recant my post, I shouldn't have said what I did. There are plenty of quotes that say they can in the future have the Priesthood restored. Not sure how that all works but I guess it all gets worked out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism (bold mine) Celestial marriage and exaltation[edit] "For Latter-day Saints, a celestial marriage is not required to get into the celestial kingdom, but is required to obtain a fullness of glory or exaltation within the celestial kingdom.[107]The righteous who do not have a celestial marriage would still live eternally with God, but they would be "appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants."[108] As black people were banned from entering celestial marriage prior to 1978,[32] some interpreted this to mean that they would be treated as unmarried whites, being confined to only ever live in God's presence as a ministering servant. Mark E. Petersen[67] and Apostle George F. Richards taught that blacks could not achieve exaltation because of their priesthood and temple restrictions.[109] Several leaders, including Joseph Smith,[110] Brigham Young,[111] Wilford Woodruff,[112] George Albert Smith,[113] David O. McKay,[114] Joseph Fielding Smith,[115] and Harold B. Lee[116] taught that black people would eventually be able to receive a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom." I'm aware that Elder Peterson spoke erroneously (and, in hindsight, foolishly) on the matter of the eventual exaltation of black people. But his remarks were never binding on the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. And both he and Elder Delbert L. Stapley (who had expressed himself unwisely in a private letter on the civil rights issue in the '60s) by all indications earnestly embraced the 1978 revelation when it was presented to them. Edited September 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Marginal Gains Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm aware that Elder Peterson spoke erroneously (and, in hindsight, foolishly) on the matter of the eventual exaltation of black people. But his remarks were never binding on the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. And both he and Elder Delbert L. Stapley (who had expressed himself unwisely in a private letter on the civil rights issue in the '60s) by all indications earnestly embraced the 1978 revelation when it was presented to them. At what point does an Apostles remarks become binding on the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints? What would have happened to a Latter-day Saint at the time Peterson spoke, had they refused to sustain him on the basis that they thought his remarks were erroneous and foolish?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: At what point does an Apostles remarks become binding on the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints? At the point that what he says is held to unanimously by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and is widely and uniformly taught by the members thereof as the doctrine/position of the Church. Quote What would have happened to a Latter-day Saint at the time Peterson spoke, had they refused to sustain him on the basis that they thought his remarks were erroneous and foolish? Based on what happens today, I suppose the Latter-day Saint would have suffered no discernible consequences. What has happened to the individuals who lately have been shouting out their opposition at general conferences? Nothing, insofar as I am aware.
cdowis Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) del Edited September 11, 2017 by cdowis
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, cdowis said: You are forgiven, my son. Tacenda's a daughter.
cdowis Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) "Good grief, cdowis, keep your mouth shut. Here comes party pooper." No problem, I'll just delete my post. Edited September 11, 2017 by cdowis
ksfisher Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: At what point does an Apostles remarks become binding on the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints? "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine 1
JLHPROF Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 4 hours ago, ksfisher said: Quote At what point does an Apostles remarks become binding on the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints? "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine See, I would have said an item becomes binding on our beliefs when we receive a testimony of its truthfulness. If it's true, it shouldn't matter if it's official. If it's false then even if it's official we should reject it. Truth is binding. Nothing else.
CV75 Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 On September 10, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Marginal Gains said: The Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites were to be divinely cursed for their wickedness, and so that righteous Nephites could identify them and avoid intermingling with them, he marked them with a black skin. How does the context of the Nephites racial culture have any bearing - unless you’re saying God din’t curs and mark the Lamanites and the Nephites were just attributing skin colour differences to God? And if so that presents us with a different problem, because it is Nephi informing us that he witnessed the change in skin colour. So, according to Nephi, it didn’t happen over generations of intermarriage with a dark skinned indigiunous population (whom Nephi never mentions), it happened ‘right before his eyes’ so to speak. I'm talking about the context of the article -- the Church's disavowal relates to societal interpretations of scripture. The scripture itself is not elucidating an eternal principle but as you say describes the curse as something specifically purposed for the Nephite/Lamanite day and age and culture. Greetings from Old Quebec too much vacation for too much posting LOL.
ksfisher Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: See, I would have said an item becomes binding on our beliefs when we receive a testimony of its truthfulness. If it's true, it shouldn't matter if it's official. If it's false then even if it's official we should reject it. Truth is binding. Nothing else. I'll stick with the definition that involves prophets, seers, and revelators. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I'll stick with the definition that involves prophets, seers, and revelators. I could provide you with plenty of quotes from our prophets, seers, and revelators recommending that you follow the approach I suggest. But I'm sure you're already familiar with them.
ksfisher Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I could provide you with plenty of quotes from our prophets, seers, and revelators recommending that you follow the approach I suggest. But I'm sure you're already familiar with them. I think the two go hand in hand. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng
Scott Lloyd Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I could provide you with plenty of quotes from our prophets, seers, and revelators recommending that you follow the approach I suggest. But I'm sure you're already familiar with them. Without knowing precisely what you have in mind, I'm going to guess that, properly understood, none of them contradict what ksfisher quoted. Otherwise, Snufferites and the like have license to do as they will.
clarkgoble Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 On 9/10/2017 at 3:51 PM, Marginal Gains said: There is no supposition. I’m simply referring to the plain English of 2nd Nephi. Can you show me where the Church teaches it means something other than what it says? The one making a supposition is you “It seems to me...” I think you're missing the point. Certainly I don't dispute some would read it and attribute some divine miracle. The main counterarguments are the following: 1. In mesoAmerica many groups marked themselves with paint and that might easily describe the "curse" especially how quickly it came and disappeared in 3 Ne 2:15 when they join the Nephites. 2. We should read the text in terms of typical ancient peoples who were pretty xenophobic. Look at how Jews in Jerusalem treated Samaritans let alone gentiles. 3. If the Lamanites merged with indigenous peoples that might account for some of the views by the xenophobic Nephites. 4. The skin is relative. The Nephites were still a Semitic people from Palestine and not anything like Europeans. Brant Gardner has suggested that if there was a difference it's more akin to the high land peoples and low land people in mesoAmerica. 5. There are passages where the Nephites and Lamanites seem indistinguishable. (Moroni's searching for a former Lamanite guard in Alma 55 is the popular example of this) That undermines the idea of a magic dark skin curse. 6. Alma 3:6 suggests a mark that's a big more vague in terms of nature. i.e. it could be paint as in (1) 7. Jacob condemns the Nephites for reviling the Lamanites because of their skins in Jacob 3:8 suggesting that while there was real Nephite racism it was condemned. 8. Even the parts about mixing are not treated the same. Once the Lamanites are baptized, they're not seen as Lamanites are Nephites quickly mingle with them. Thus the main issue isn't the skin but the apostasy.
ksfisher Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: 3. If the Lamanites merged with indigenous peoples that might account for some of the views by the xenophobic Nephites. 5. There are passages where the Nephites and Lamanites seem indistinguishable. (Moroni's searching for a former Lamanite guard in Alma 55 is the popular example of this) That undermines the idea of a magic dark skin curse. It would not be surprising in the Nephites also merged with friendly indigenous peoples as well (see 2 Nephi 5:6). I shouldn't wonder if after a few generations a Nephite, Lamanite, and a native were virtually indistinguishable by sight. Mosiah 9:1 relates how Zeniff is sent as a spy among the Lamanites.
Marginal Gains Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 2 hours ago, ksfisher said: It would not be surprising in the Nephites also merged with friendly indigenous peoples as well (see 2 Nephi 5:6). I shouldn't wonder if after a few generations a Nephite, Lamanite, and a native were virtually indistinguishable by sight. Mosiah 9:1 relates how Zeniff is sent as a spy among the Lamanites. The difficulty with this suggestion is that it doesn’t fit with what the Book of Mormon says with regards to the change of skin colour. The mark is presented as preventative not consequential. It’s purpose was to stop Nephites intermarrying with Lamanites (who were of the same ethnicity and skin colour as Nephites) rather than as a consequence of intermingling.
Marginal Gains Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I think you're missing the point. Certainly I don't dispute some would read it and attribute some divine miracle. The main counterarguments are the following: 1. In mesoAmerica many groups marked themselves with paint and that might easily describe the "curse" especially how quickly it came and disappeared in 3 Ne 2:15 when they join the Nephites. 2. We should read the text in terms of typical ancient peoples who were pretty xenophobic. Look at how Jews in Jerusalem treated Samaritans let alone gentiles. 3. If the Lamanites merged with indigenous peoples that might account for some of the views by the xenophobic Nephites. 4. The skin is relative. The Nephites were still a Semitic people from Palestine and not anything like Europeans. Brant Gardner has suggested that if there was a difference it's more akin to the high land peoples and low land people in mesoAmerica. 5. There are passages where the Nephites and Lamanites seem indistinguishable. (Moroni's searching for a former Lamanite guard in Alma 55 is the popular example of this) That undermines the idea of a magic dark skin curse. 6. Alma 3:6 suggests a mark that's a big more vague in terms of nature. i.e. it could be paint as in (1) 7. Jacob condemns the Nephites for reviling the Lamanites because of their skins in Jacob 3:8 suggesting that while there was real Nephite racism it was condemned. 8. Even the parts about mixing are not treated the same. Once the Lamanites are baptized, they're not seen as Lamanites are Nephites quickly mingle with them. Thus the main issue isn't the skin but the apostasy. I know you aren’t necessarily presenting your counter arguments, but let me respond to each as if you were: 1. Nephi attributed people painting their faces to God cursing them with a skin of blackness? Please tell me you’re joking... 2. Nephites were racists, but during production of the Book of Mormon God neglected to point out to JS that such xenophobia was not from Him? 3. There’s no suggestion from Nephi that Lamanites were anything other than ancestors of Laman and Lemuel and Nephites gone rogue. 4. If there was a difference? Nephi was a Prophet keeping a divinely inspired record of God’s dealings with his people in the Americas and yet it contains cultural racism and misattributation of skin colour despite the fact that God had the opportunity to correct it or explain it at the point JS was translating the record, but He didn’t, leading to 150 years of erroneous uncorrected cultural racism attributed to Him within His Restored Church right from the get go? Do I have that about right? 5. Which undermines both Nephi as a Prophet, JS and 100 years of succession as Prophets, and means the Church was in apostasy from the Restoration up to 1978. 6. Alma wasn’t there at the time, Nephi is a first hand prophetic witness. 7. Which also attests to the fact that there was a skin colour difference, undermining Brant Gardner and point 4. 8. Actually, the main take away from that would be that the Prophets of the Book of Mormon didn’t have the first clue about what God did or didn’t want, did or didn’t do. If we cannot trust what the authors of the Book of Mormon say about skin colour, on what basis can they be trusted to accurately reflect the will of the Lord on any other subject? If the curse and the associated skin colour change isn’t true (accurate) on what basis can Moroni’s promise be legitimate? Edited September 12, 2017 by Marginal Gains
Marginal Gains Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 8 hours ago, CV75 said: I'm talking about the context of the article -- the Church's disavowal relates to societal interpretations of scripture. The scripture itself is not elucidating an eternal principle but as you say describes the curse as something specifically purposed for the Nephite/Lamanite day and age and culture. Greetings from Old Quebec too much vacation for too much posting LOL. If it’s not elucidating (great word by the way) an eternal principle, and was only for the Nephite day and age, why is it included in a book that was restored specifically for our day and age? Nowhere does Race And The Priesthood articulate the caveat that the disavowing applies to societal interpretation of scripture and excludes scripture itself. Please feel free to correct me by quoting where either the article or the Church makes the distinction you wish it to have made. “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse” https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng The above, very directly disavows Nephi’s comments in the Book Of Mormon.
Recommended Posts