Rajah Manchou Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: But yeah they wouldn't look norther European in the least with all apologies to those paintings in the Book of Mormon. They'd almost certainly look like contemporary Palestinians or Syrians. One thing I truly wish we could do is move away from the art of the 20th century and portray Nephites as having curly black hair and dark skin, Lamanites as looking more mayan, and perhaps moving away from swords as Roman gladius. We're halfway there with some art but most art from the Church is deeply problematic as those excepts from the Book of Mormon Stories for Children show. If the gentiles in 1 Nephi were Europeans, then Nephi certainly believed his people were as white as the Puritans: "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." - 1 Nephi 13:15
clarkgoble Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said: If the gentiles in 1 Nephi were Europeans, then Nephi certainly believed his people were as white as the Puritans: Although war paint and tattoos works just as well - I.e. the lack of them among most inhabitants. Unless he means something more metaphoric by the terms as Robert noted. Edited June 1, 2018 by clarkgoble
Rajah Manchou Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Although war paint and tattoos works just as well - I.e. the lack of them among most inhabitants. So this solution would be something like: Nephi saw the Puritans in vision and was impressed that, like the Nephites, they didn't have war paint and tattoos? Edited June 1, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
clarkgoble Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: So this solution would be something like: Nephi saw the Puritans in vision and was impressed that, like the Nephites, they didn't have war paint and tattoos? He saw they were different and more like his people. To Nephi, in which paganism was the big problem back in Israel/Canaan that matters a great deal. I'm not saying that's what happened. Just that there are many different ways to read the text. I think the phraseology in 1 Ne 13 (which doesn't mention skin) could also be tied to the metaphors Robert notes in the Old Testament. I tend to favor the war paint interpretation myself, but I don't think there's enough information in the text to really make a decisive conclusion. Since 1 Nephi 13 is part of an apocalyptic vision I think we should assume images and descriptions are highly symbolic. This is not a literal seeing of things. (Look at how the vision of Christ and 12 apostles goes) Also at the time of 1 Nephi 13 the Nephites aren't yet in America but are wandering in the wilderness probably down by Yemen. Edited June 1, 2018 by clarkgoble
Rajah Manchou Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Also at the time of 1 Nephi 13 the Nephites aren't yet in America but are wandering in the wilderness probably down by Yemen. This is why I don't read the gentiles of the vision as being European Puritans. Nephi had never seen a European before. If he saw Columbus and the Puritans in vision he would have been seeing something he was unfamiliar with. It seems unlikely his response to seeing Master Christopher Jones at the helm of the Mayflower would have been, "wow, he looks just like me". The more reasonable reading, in my opinion, is that the gentiles Nephi saw in his vision were Christians of his complexion fleeing captivity in the Middle East, not Puritans in England seeking economic opportunities in America.
stemelbow Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe in predestination. And I believe that God's work allows for all mankind to be saved. Work for the dead even allows for those who didn't have access to the gospel during mortality. I'd suggest there's a paradox in the position of God knowing the final outcome for each of us and there being no predestination. He already knows where we each end up before we start. Saved can a confusing term since in Mormonism there is near universal salvation in a sense. But if I enter this world already having my fate sealed to the Telestial Kingdom, there is nothing I can do to change that. God knows it, therefore I can't change it. We can certainly say God knowing it doesn't take away our abilities to choose, but in the end it's all about God knowing it, that makes the difference. Our choices were already set and programed into us. It must be so if God knows it. 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: But I also believe they were chosen to come to earth in that time period for a reason, just as we were for ours. I believe we chose families and lineages. I believe God's prophets were chosen, the heads of dispensations sat in council with the Savior, and that scriptural principles like birthright and heirship are not bestowed by random chance. Christ wasn't chosen just because he happened to be born first. Isaac rules over Ishmael, Jacob rules over Esau, and Ephraim rules over Manasseh. And those aren't accidents of birth but the result of obedience. And I don't believe any of this removes our agency to choose a different path. The whole God knows the end from the beginning and makes things happen by putting certain people in certain places is far more a factor in what goes on here, and each of our eternal destinies then our agency according to your reasoning. Indeed, saying we still have agency in such a system, may sound useful but I don't see how it is. If you were a noble and great one before this world was, and God stuck you in this earth in your particular circumstances because of your privilege, knowing that by so doing you would achieve exaltation, since he would then know each and every choice you would make before you ever had the choice conceived in your head, is the choice really yours, or did God conceive of that choice far before you ever had a chance too? You speak of agency in this plan then contradict it with your reasoning. 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: That's an entirely different issue. As Joseph reported said to Fanny Murray "you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want." Odd to bring this up in light of this response from Joseph was solicited by her opposing the notion that plural marriage was a necessity for exaltation. In some ways it'd have been nice if Joseph knew what he was talking about, but sadly it seems like he was playing fast and loose like the rest of us, imagining an eternity that never will be.
CV75 Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'd suggest there's a paradox in the position of God knowing the final outcome for each of us and there being no predestination. He already knows where we each end up before we start. Saved can a confusing term since in Mormonism there is near universal salvation in a sense. But if I enter this world already having my fate sealed to the Telestial Kingdom, there is nothing I can do to change that. God knows it, therefore I can't change it. We can certainly say God knowing it doesn't take away our abilities to choose, but in the end it's all about God knowing it, that makes the difference. Our choices were already set and programed into us. It must be so if God knows it. I think His knowing our final outcome (as well as all things from the beginning) is only a subset of knowing all possible outcomes ahead of time, which is a subset of His omniscience. Foreknowledge is a form of faith, realized later as knowledge (it is also a form of knowledge, for by faith all outcomes are known). Because you cannot (and He cannot) change all possible outcomes, the choices cannot be set and programmed. You can change the path to the outcome, and God will not force that choice regardless of His omniscience. 38 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The whole God knows the end from the beginning and makes things happen by putting certain people in certain places is far more a factor in what goes on here, and each of our eternal destinies then our agency according to your reasoning. Indeed, saying we still have agency in such a system, may sound useful but I don't see how it is. If you were a noble and great one before this world was, and God stuck you in this earth in your particular circumstances because of your privilege, knowing that by so doing you would achieve exaltation, since he would then know each and every choice you would make before you ever had the choice conceived in your head, is the choice really yours, or did God conceive of that choice far before you ever had a chance too? You speak of agency in this plan then contradict it with your reasoning. Again, foreknowledge is a form of faith. God places the noble and great ones in faith (an eternal principle); the agency is theirs to fulfill their role or not. For example, consider how many noble and great ones might have failed before Abraham proved himself. Consider how many records of the noble and great ones that fulfilled their calling were lost (hence the pleas mentioned in Enos 1:14-18). Edited June 1, 2018 by CV75
stemelbow Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think His knowing our final outcome (as well as all things from the beginning) is only a subset of knowing all possible outcomes ahead of time, which is a subset of His omniscience. Foreknowledge is a form of faith, realized later as knowledge (it is also a form of knowledge, for by faith all outcomes are known). Because you cannot (and He cannot) change all possible outcomes, the choices cannot be set and programmed. You can change the path to the outcome, and God will not force that choice regardless of His omniscience. Again, foreknowledge is a form of faith. God places the noble and great ones in faith (an eternal principle); the agency is theirs to fulfill their role or not. For example, consider how many noble and great ones might have failed before Abraham proved himself. Consider how many records of the noble and great ones that fulfilled their calling were lost (hence the pleas mentioned in Enos 1:14-18). Thank you, I do believe you just helped explain my point. If there were noble and great ones before Abraham and they failed God already knew they would. He as it were, then placed them in their time and place knowing they would fail, perhaps because they would fail. This all before they knew they would fail and how they would fail. The failing on their part was conceived of by God before they ever had a chance to so conceive. Thus their failure originated with God. Your and JLHPROF's position is not just a hard one to hold but such a contradictory one it doesn't even make sense.
CV75 Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 52 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Thank you, I do believe you just helped explain my point. If there were noble and great ones before Abraham and they failed God already knew they would. He as it were, then placed them in their time and place knowing they would fail, perhaps because they would fail. This all before they knew they would fail and how they would fail. The failing on their part was conceived of by God before they ever had a chance to so conceive. Thus their failure originated with God. Your and JLHPROF's position is not just a hard one to hold but such a contradictory one it doesn't even make sense. Not really. Alma 13 shows that some of those with “exceeding faith and good works” in the pre-mortal life chose good in this life and were called to perform God's work, “while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.” Often agency is overlooked in fulfilling our pre-mortal hopes and promises. This shows that God does not necessarily know who will choose to fulfill their foreordained purpose. He knows who of the pre-mortal spirits could fulfill their foreordained purpose if they choose accordingly along the way. We only know about Abraham because that is the record that we have; how the covenants have passed down to us. And maybe he had other sons before Isaac that failed in what Isaac finally had faith to do. Maybe there were two or more "Abrahams" and "Isaacs" that succeeded and the Lord sent them on other missions, and decided to work with the one we are familiar with to pass along the covenants. God knows all His noble and great ones can choose to fail, and he knows all the ways they can (many are called, few are chosen). This does not stop Him, nor does it stop the noble and great ones from doing what they were foreordained to do. We are all foreordained to return to Him anyway; we become noble and great, or rather we recognize the noble and great, in retrospect because that is our perspective in mortality. To rephrase your assertion: "If there were noble and great ones before Abraham and they failed God already knew they could. He as it were, then placed them in their time and place knowing they could fail, [and that] perhaps because they would fail. This all before they knew they would fail and how they would fail. The failing on their part was conceived of [comprehended or foreknown] by God before they ever had a chance to so conceive [choose in this life], but so what: that is the nature of pre-mortal versus mortal timing! Thus their failure or their success was their choice, wherein their exercise of their agency with a life on earth originated with God." Edited June 1, 2018 by CV75
stemelbow Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 19 minutes ago, CV75 said: Not really. Alma 13 shows that some of those with “exceeding faith and good works” in the pre-mortal life chose good in this life and were called to perform God's work, “while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.” Often agency is overlooked in fulfilling our pre-mortal hopes and promises. This shows that God does not necessarily know who will choose to fulfill their foreordained purpose. He knows who of the pre-mortal spirits could fulfill their foreordained purpose if they choose accordingly along the way. We only know about Abraham because that is the record that we have; how the covenants have passed down to us. And maybe he had other sons before Isaac that failed in what Isaac finally had faith to do. Maybe there were two or more "Abrahams" and "Isaacs" that succeeded and the Lord sent them on other missions, and decided to work with the one we are familiar with to pass along the covenants. God knows all His noble and great ones can choose to fail, and he knows all the ways they can (many are called, few are chosen). This does not stop Him, nor does it stop the noble and great ones from doing what they were foreordained to do. We are all foreordained to return to Him anyway; we become noble and great, or rather we recognize the noble and great, in retrospect because that is our perspective in mortality. To rephrase your assertion: "If there were noble and great ones before Abraham and they failed God already knew they could. He as it were, then placed them in their time and place knowing they could fail, [and that] perhaps because they would fail. This all before they knew they would fail and how they would fail. The failing on their part was conceived of [comprehended or foreknown] by God before they ever had a chance to so conceive [choose in this life], but so what: that is the nature of pre-mortal versus mortal timing! Thus their failure or their success was their choice, wherein their exercise of their agency with a life on earth originated with God." Well if you're saying God doesn't know what's going to happen, doesn't know the end from the beginning, nor doesn't know each and every decision we make before we make them, then I'd agree. Our agency does factor in. On the other hand if you're saying He does know but that knowing doesn't effect what we choose, then it doesn't work. Our choice then is not ours because it was made before we ever faced the choice. God so made our decisions before we ever were faced with the decision when He foresaw what would/should happen.
USU78 Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Here is a short piece I wrote in January 1984, WHITENESS & BLACKNESS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON Why does the parallel of “white and delightsome” ǁ “dark and loathsome” find such expression at Alma 3:4-10, which deals with manners and customs, and intermarriage? Hugh Nibley provided the likeliest range of the full symbolic meaning as ethnic (heredity & culture) in several of his books,[1] while Fawn Brodie did not understand the issue at all.[2] A calm inductive look emphasizes just how wrong some modern assumptions can be: Blackness in the KJV Job 3:5 “Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it, Let a cloud dwell upon it; Let the blackness of the day terrify it.” כמריר Lamentations 5:10 “Our skin was black like an oven,” (from famine) כמר Job 6:16 “which are blackish by reason of the ice, קדר And wherein the snow is hid.” Jeremiah 8:21 “I am black; קדר Astonishment hath taken hold on me.” (cf. Ezk 31:15, 32:7-8, I Ki 18:45) Jeremiah 14:2 “they are black unto the ground.” קדר Isaiah 50:3 “I clothe the heavens with blackness, קדרות And I make sackcloth their covering.” Lamentations 4:8 “Their visage is blacker than a coal;” שחר Joel 2:6 “pained; all faces shall gather blackness.” פארור Nahum 2:10 “the faces of them all gather blackness.” פארור Job 30:30 “My skin is black upon me, שחר And my bones are burned with heat.” Song of Songs 1:5 “I am black, but comely” (cf. 5:11) שחר Song of Songs 1:6 “Look not upon me, because I am black, שחרחרת Because the sun hath looked upon me.” Jude 13 “wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness ζάρος of darkness forever.” Whiteness in the KJV Job 9:30 “If I wash myself with snow water, And make my hands never so clean.” זכך Lamentations 4:7 “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, זכך They were whiter than milk.” צחח Psalm 51:7 “Purge me with hyssop, And I shall be clean: Wash me, And I shall be whiter than snow.” לבן (cf. Daniel 11:35, 12:10) (Psalm 51:2 “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, And cleanse me from sin.”) Esther 1:6 “white” (first) Hebrew “white linen” = LXX Greek “fine linen” חור “white” (second) Hebrew “mother-of-pearl” = LXX Greek “pearl” (KJV marginal reading “alabaster” דר ) Exodus 20:33 “pure myrrh” (= “myrrh-oil”) דרור The KJV translation is often inadequate, but the parallelisms embedded within even a bad translation can clarify the meaning rather well: Jeremiah 8:21 “For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.” 14:2 “Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; They are black unto the ground.” Joel 2:2 “A day of darkness and of gloominess, A day of clouds and of thick darkness,” 2:6 “Before their face the people shall be much pained: All faces shall gather blackness.” Lamentations 4:7 “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, They were whiter than milk,” * * * * 4:8 “Their visage is blacker than a coal; * * * * Their skin cleaveth to their bones; It is withered, it is become like a stick.” 5:10 “Our skin was black like an oven Because of the terrible famine.” Nahum 2:10 “She is empty, and void, and waste: * * * * And much pain is in the loins, And the faces of them all gather blackness.” The change from “white” to “pure” at II Nephi 30:6 in 1981 has raised some questions, but the change is in accord with the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, and the parallel, even synonymous usage of each is clear, not only from the above references, but also from the remainder of the Book of Mormon: II Nephi 5:21-22, Alma 5:21,24,27, 13:12. [1] Nibley, Since Cumorah, 1st ed., 246-251; Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 1st ed., 216-218; cf. Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind, 86, 91, 101-102. [2] Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 2nd ed., 423-425. But since poetry is hard, and XXth Century obsession with melanin drives out all thought and perverts all public discourse, none of this will end up mattering. Mormons are racist because, tautologically, Mormons are racists. 2
Exiled Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, USU78 said: But since poetry is hard, and XXth Century obsession with melanin drives out all thought and perverts all public discourse, none of this will end up mattering. Mormons are racist because, tautologically, Mormons are racists. I think some mormons were racist and maybe some are still today. I don't think the vast majority are and it's good the past is being buried. In any event, there are scriptures in the BofM, BofA and BofMoses that can be construed as being from a time when racist attitudes prevailed in the USA. Why do you think God allowed such things to creep into his scriptures? Why didn't he make it plainer that white meant pure? It seems once again God didn't communicate properly to his prophet? 1
CV75 Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Well if you're saying God doesn't know what's going to happen, doesn't know the end from the beginning, nor doesn't know each and every decision we make before we make them, then I'd agree. Our agency does factor in. On the other hand if you're saying He does know but that knowing doesn't effect what we choose, then it doesn't work. Our choice then is not ours because it was made before we ever faced the choice. God so made our decisions before we ever were faced with the decision when He foresaw what would/should happen. I think He knows what’s going to happen, because He knows all that could happen and has experience with and recall of anything that could happen. In this way He knows the end from the beginning. This is how He plans around our fallibility and agency and presciently (relative to our ability to foresee things at least) intervenes when necessary. This is how one can say He knows “each and every decision” before they are made. This neither affects (alters) nor effects (programs) our agency and the resulting choices. It does explain why He gives us commandments, guidance, a conscience and the power and Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is to influence our choices, and it does support the idea of His delegating quite a bit of His work
clarkgoble Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Underneath all this is the question of God's foreknowledge. There are four main positions. God has absolute foreknowledge God has limited foreknowledge God has no foreknowledge but knowledge of all possibilities in depth God knows just like us. He may know a lot more but is still limited. Typical Open Theists favor (4) - these are people like Blake Ostler or others. I think there are some issues with that but it can't be rejected out of hand. I tend towards a variant of (2) of some kind but have little confidence in such a view. Typically people's other commitments push them to pick a particular conception of God's knowledge. So most Open Theists seem to go that route because they think a robust ontological type of free will is necessary to make God's judgements just. (Blake is an example of that) I don't really buy that reasoning. To my eyes while there's some scriptural indications that push one towards (1) there are also reasons to be skeptical. Most GAs assume (1) but it's not clear there's any unambiguous revelation on it but just arises from how they read scripture. The point is that without knowing the nature of God's knowledge, it's almost impossible to answer these other questions people are raising. 1
california boy Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 On 5/31/2018 at 4:18 PM, cinepro said: If the question is "Is there a way to honestly frame this aspect of the B.O.M in a more positive light that makes more sense than the obvious reading?", the answer is, sadly, "no." https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35666_eng.pdf?lang=eng Every painting or illustration I have ever seen the church use, Nephites are portrayed as having white skin and Lamanites having dark skin. Now we are suppose to believe the verse is talking about clothing? Please. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Exiled said: I think some mormons were racist and maybe some are still today. I don't think the vast majority are and it's good the past is being buried. In any event, there are scriptures in the BofM, BofA and BofMoses that can be construed as being from a time when racist attitudes prevailed in the USA. Why do you think God allowed such things to creep into his scriptures? Why didn't he make it plainer that white meant pure? It seems once again God didn't communicate properly to his prophet? I don't know that we can blame God. He is perfect, but his children tend to be somewhat obtuse. The word of the Lord is "given unto [his] servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" (D&C 1:24). "He speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." Since men are fallible, it is always a question of adequate interpretation. 1
california boy Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 On 5/31/2018 at 8:35 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Here is a short piece I wrote in January 1984, WHITENESS & BLACKNESS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON Why does the parallel of “white and delightsome” ǁ “dark and loathsome” find such expression at Alma 3:4-10, which deals with manners and customs, and intermarriage? Hugh Nibley provided the likeliest range of the full symbolic meaning as ethnic (heredity & culture) in several of his books,[1] while Fawn Brodie did not understand the issue at all.[2] A calm inductive look emphasizes just how wrong some modern assumptions can be: Blackness in the KJV Job 3:5 “Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it, Let a cloud dwell upon it; Let the blackness of the day terrify it.” כמריר Lamentations 5:10 “Our skin was black like an oven,” (from famine) כמר Job 6:16 “which are blackish by reason of the ice, קדר And wherein the snow is hid.” Jeremiah 8:21 “I am black; קדר Astonishment hath taken hold on me.” (cf. Ezk 31:15, 32:7-8, I Ki 18:45) Jeremiah 14:2 “they are black unto the ground.” קדר Isaiah 50:3 “I clothe the heavens with blackness, קדרות And I make sackcloth their covering.” Lamentations 4:8 “Their visage is blacker than a coal;” שחר Joel 2:6 “pained; all faces shall gather blackness.” פארור Nahum 2:10 “the faces of them all gather blackness.” פארור Job 30:30 “My skin is black upon me, שחר And my bones are burned with heat.” Song of Songs 1:5 “I am black, but comely” (cf. 5:11) שחר Song of Songs 1:6 “Look not upon me, because I am black, שחרחרת Because the sun hath looked upon me.” Jude 13 “wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness ζάρος of darkness forever.” Whiteness in the KJV Job 9:30 “If I wash myself with snow water, And make my hands never so clean.” זכך Lamentations 4:7 “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, זכך They were whiter than milk.” צחח Psalm 51:7 “Purge me with hyssop, And I shall be clean: Wash me, And I shall be whiter than snow.” לבן (cf. Daniel 11:35, 12:10) (Psalm 51:2 “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, And cleanse me from sin.”) Esther 1:6 “white” (first) Hebrew “white linen” = LXX Greek “fine linen” חור “white” (second) Hebrew “mother-of-pearl” = LXX Greek “pearl” (KJV marginal reading “alabaster” דר ) Exodus 20:33 “pure myrrh” (= “myrrh-oil”) דרור The KJV translation is often inadequate, but the parallelisms embedded within even a bad translation can clarify the meaning rather well: Jeremiah 8:21 “For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.” 14:2 “Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; They are black unto the ground.” Joel 2:2 “A day of darkness and of gloominess, A day of clouds and of thick darkness,” 2:6 “Before their face the people shall be much pained: All faces shall gather blackness.” Lamentations 4:7 “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, They were whiter than milk,” * * * * 4:8 “Their visage is blacker than a coal; * * * * Their skin cleaveth to their bones; It is withered, it is become like a stick.” 5:10 “Our skin was black like an oven Because of the terrible famine.” Nahum 2:10 “She is empty, and void, and waste: * * * * And much pain is in the loins, And the faces of them all gather blackness.” The change from “white” to “pure” at II Nephi 30:6 in 1981 has raised some questions, but the change is in accord with the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, and the parallel, even synonymous usage of each is clear, not only from the above references, but also from the remainder of the Book of Mormon: II Nephi 5:21-22, Alma 5:21,24,27, 13:12. [1] Nibley, Since Cumorah, 1st ed., 246-251; Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 1st ed., 216-218; cf. Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind, 86, 91, 101-102. [2] Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 2nd ed., 423-425. Is there any record of anyone in the entire Mormon Church spinning the dark skin as not being skin color prior to 1978? It seems like all of this spin about skin color has only occurred after 1978. Why is that? Certainly these verses were well known, and used prior to 1978. 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 On 5/31/2018 at 8:18 AM, cinepro said: If the question is "Is there a way to honestly frame this aspect of the B.O.M in a more positive light that makes more sense than the obvious reading?", the answer is, sadly, "no." https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35666_eng.pdf?lang=eng Frame 3: At times the Lamanites were more righteous and faithful. The Lord blessed them. At times, the Nephites were more proud and wicked than the Lamanites and they were cursed with wars and destruction. Frame 4: After Jesus came to the Lamanites and Nephites, they forgot all their hatred and once again became one people.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, california boy said: Every painting or illustration I have ever seen the church use, Nephites are portrayed as having white skin and Lamanites having dark skin. Now we are suppose to believe the verse is talking about clothing? Please. The various shades of human complexions do not include "white." White is an ethnic distinction which anthropologists do not use because is completely misleading, and the artists you speak of do not in fact depict Nephites as having "white" skin. Their complexions usually appear as West European, a kind of pink or flesh-tone, while the Lamanites are not depicted as having black skin (in fact there is no such shade of skin, but only shades and degrees of brown). Even so-called "Black people" are not actually black, but simply dark brown. If we want to be true to the Manassite and Jewish (middle eastern) origin of Clan Lehi, and of the Mulekites, we are going to have to forget about the Nordic physiognomy and skin color used by European Mormon artists such as Arnold Friberg. They are well-intentioned but simply ignorant. Here is a typical Jewish wedding recently in Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqz4EPsizno&list=RDI8jq9YUOcHs&index=6 . Take a gander at the faces of the Israelis gathered there. Or see this Jewish Israeli orchestra and Jewish singers (Tel Aviv): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3ddBIsthpA . We are not speaking about clothing.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 34 minutes ago, california boy said: Is there any record of anyone in the entire Mormon Church spinning the dark skin as not being skin color prior to 1978? Hugh Nibley certainly did in his Lehi in the Desert, 71; and in his later Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 228-229, 305. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: It seems like all of this spin about skin color has only occurred after 1978. Why is that? Certainly these verses were well known, and used prior to 1978. Of course the Book of Mormon verses were read in the same lackadaisical manner that KJV Bible verses have typically been read by the hoi polloi. That is to be expected. Some Mormons and Bible readers generally even drew racial conclusions from those types of texts. It isn't so much a matter of "spin" as just plain ignorance of the meaning of the actual texts. Scholars bring a very different POV to the text. Probably the best discussion is by anthropologist Brant Gardner online at https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness#en21 . 1
Paiute Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 Jacob 3:8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be awhiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. 3 Nephi 2:15 And their acurse was taken from them, and their skin became bwhite like unto the Nephites; 1 Nephi 11:13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of aNazareth I beheld a bvirgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
Tacenda Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hugh Nibley certainly did in his Lehi in the Desert, 71; and in his later Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 228-229, 305. Of course the Book of Mormon verses were read in the same lackadaisical manner that KJV Bible verses have typically been read by the hoi polloi. That is to be expected. Some Mormons and Bible readers generally even drew racial conclusions from those types of texts. It isn't so much a matter of "spin" as just plain ignorance of the meaning of the actual texts. Scholars bring a very different POV to the text. Probably the best discussion is by anthropologist Brant Gardner online at https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness#en21 . Why is it our own prophets didn't understand that it wasn't actually black skin? Over and over it is said that a prophet is a man and aren't perfect. I don't believe many of the prophets in the bible knew too much...http://listverse.com/2016/01/17/10-strange-and-controversial-biblical-prophets/ Edited June 2, 2018 by Tacenda
california boy Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The various shades of human complexions do not include "white." White is an ethnic distinction which anthropologists do not use because is completely misleading, and the artists you speak of do not in fact depict Nephites as having "white" skin. Their complexions usually appear as West European, a kind of pink or flesh-tone, while the Lamanites are not depicted as having black skin (in fact there is no such shade of skin, but only shades and degrees of brown). Even so-called "Black people" are not actually black, but simply dark brown. If we want to be true to the Manassite and Jewish (middle eastern) origin of Clan Lehi, and of the Mulekites, we are going to have to forget about the Nordic physiognomy and skin color used by European Mormon artists such as Arnold Friberg. They are well-intentioned but simply ignorant. Here is a typical Jewish wedding recently in Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqz4EPsizno&list=RDI8jq9YUOcHs&index=6 . Take a gander at the faces of the Israelis gathered there. Or see this Jewish Israeli orchestra and Jewish singers (Tel Aviv): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3ddBIsthpA . We are not speaking about clothing. Honestly, this post just reinforces my assertion of spin. You really didn't know what I meant by white skin and dark skin? To make claims that one ENTIRE group was referred to as white because they were more righteous and refer to the other ENTIRE group as dark skinned because they were less righteous seems, well, highly unlikely. That is not how groups of people act. Could anyone possibly claim that all Mormons are white skinned meaning they were all righteous? And all non-Mormons are dark skinned because they are all unrighteous? Robert, can you really not see that these explanations are extremely weak and appear more like grasping for straws? I personally don't care any more about the priesthood ban. It was wrong. It happened. Get over it. But to try and go back and change commonly understood scripture at the time to mean something entirely different seems like spin from todays perspective. Honestly, I think the only people that you and others might convince are those that desperately need an answer to a policy that has now been disavowed. Edited June 2, 2018 by california boy
Paiute Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 12 minutes ago, california boy said: Honestly, this post just reinforces my assertion of spin. Correct. Modern day Israel is a melting pot, if you will, from many countries.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 32 minutes ago, california boy said: Honestly, this post just reinforces my assertion of spin. You really didn't know what I meant by white skin and dark skin? To make claims that one ENTIRE group was referred to as white because they were more righteous and refer to the other ENTIRE group as dark skinned because they were less righteous seems, well, highly unlikely. That is not how groups of people act. Could anyone possibly claim that all Mormons are white skinned meaning they were all righteous? And all non-Mormons are dark skinned because they are all unrighteous? I fully expect non-scholars to take the POV which you have about the use of such terms. As a trained anthropologist and biblical scholar I simply know better. I don't really expect you to accept something about which you know so little. This has nothing whatever to do with any policy which has now been disavowed, nor is it a matter of spin. I realize that people have been speaking in that fashion for many years now, so it is nothing new at all, and you know that. You really do have a choice: You can continue to use the "white" and "black, dark" terminology they way yokels use it, or you can actually read the biblical and BofM text and discover that your surface assumptions are simply false. That is completely up to you. Quote Robert, can you really not see that these explanations are extremely weak and appear more like grasping for straws? I personally don't care any more about the priesthood ban. It was wrong. It happened. Get over it. But to try and go back and change commonly understood scripture at the time to mean something entirely different seems like spin from todays perspective. Honestly, I think the only people that you and others might convince are those that desperately need an answer to a policy that has now been disavowed. You were not even born yet when my Mormon friends and I were directly involved in the civil rights movement in the early 1960s, and you are likely unaware of the strongly worded essays later written by Dr Lester Bush and others. Many of us inveighed against racism, and so did our ancestors. You appear to falsely believe that there was only one monomaniacal POV among Mormons in those days. That simply isn't so, nor was it the case in Brother Brigham's day -- I have pointed out many times that Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt did not share Brigham's POV. It is a travesty to suggest otherwise. I always knew that Elder McConkie was wrong in his comments on race, priesthood, etc., and finally heard him publicly admit as much in 1978. I knew that he was wrong just as surely as I know that you are wrong today. I have not always been on the right side of history, CalBoy, but I have a pretty good average. How do you imagine I managed that?
Recommended Posts