Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

Quote

It’s a big church and not everybody is on the same page on these issues,” Mason said. “The people writing curriculum for the church were socialized at a different time in a different church, when [conservatives] Joseph Fielding Smith and [apostle] Bruce R. McConkie were authoritative voices.”

The inclusion of an old quote from Smith “disappoints but doesn’t surprise me,” the scholar said, “given what we know about entrenched conservatism of curriculum writers within the church.”

For Mason, the “silver lining” is that church leaders “did change it,” he said, “and did it quickly."

I agree with this view. It may be turned into a positive thing because the difference between the online vs printed version could be used to teach the changes and why it can take time for change to occur as well as teach one shouldn’t just depend on one source for one’s study of the Gospel. 
 

I do hope there is additional active responses to this as opposed to simply altering the digital and leaving it at that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
14 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Millions of copies already distributed claiming Dark Skim in BoM due to curse. Church claiming it’s a printing error. 
 

Damage sets back church decades claims one member of Genius.   
 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/

The teaching itself that there was such a curse exactly correct, the curse is absolutely real.

Unfortunately it is the church who got the curse for teaching it.  ;)   That Satan dude is pretty tricky.

  • Like 4
Link to post
16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As a certified genius why what I not been invited to join this Genius organization?

Because no one knows what your avatar is.   White fuzz with a black center.  Seems appropriate somehow. ;)

You and Calm have something in common now.  Fuzzy somethings.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post

My wife had purchased one and showed me the article complaining about it.

I'm surprised it slipped through.  But given our rich history of teachings it's no surprise older disavowed teachings see the light of day occasionally.

  • Like 1
Link to post

My view of this is there are a lot of different wrong beliefs still out there, even among the editors.  I don’t think the church has done enough to get word out of the essays that declare these new doctrines and church positions.  Most church members don’t know that the church now disavows the curse of black skin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

My view of this is there are a lot of different wrong beliefs still out there, even among the editors.  I don’t think the church has done enough to get word out of the essays that declare these new doctrines and church positions.  Most church members don’t know that the church now disavows the curse of black skin.

I think it's more likely (not in this case but im general) that not every member agrees with every official Church position.

Not that that's what happened here.  But just because the Church bluntly and openly declares a doctrinal position doesn't mean all members will share it.

Link to post

if the church has produced a retraction then what would stop a teacher from reading that? or the essay or post a link to the essay

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

My wife had purchased one and showed me the article complaining about it.

I'm surprised it slipped through.  But given our rich history of teachings it's no surprise older disavowed teachings see the light of day occasionally.

These are not older disavowed teachings IMHO.  Read the Book of Mormon. The language is clear. 
The manuals appear to be putting a PC spin on what the book actually says.  But something happened, to coin a phrase 

  • Like 4
Link to post
10 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

These are not older disavowed teachings IMHO.  Read the Book of Mormon. The language is clear. 
The manuals appear to be putting a PC spin on what the book actually says.  But something happened, to coin a phrase 

The language of both the Book of Mormon and current Church teachings are both clear.  Reconciling them is up to the individual.

The  official Church position is it "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse".

2nd Nephi 5 says:

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
            22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
            23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

My view of this is there are a lot of different wrong beliefs still out there, even among the editors.  I don’t think the church has done enough to get word out of the essays that declare these new doctrines and church positions.  Most church members don’t know that the church now disavows the curse of black skin.

Interesting that not too long ago on this board there was a disagreement that the curse of black skin was literal.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree with this view. It may be turned into a positive thing because the difference between the online vs printed version could be used to teach the changes and why it can take time for change to occur as well as teach one shouldn’t just depend on one source for one’s study of the Gospel. 
 

I do hope there is additional active responses to this as opposed to simply altering the digital and leaving it at that.

Would you be willing to elaborate on your agreement with Mason? 

I am not understanding what conservatism has to do with it.

As for Josep Field Smith quote, it seems that the online versions mentions the same points as the quote.

Link to post

The [conservatives] might have been added by the reporter given the punctuation.  For me, it is simply a past view that is still persistent, but not as dominant as it once was.   Explanations now tend to allow for multiple interpretations. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Millions of copies already distributed claiming Dark Skim in BoM due to curse. Church claiming it’s a printing error. 
 

Damage sets back church decades claims one member of Genius.   
 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/

The unaddressed central question of this controversy that needs to be answered is this: Are divinely mandated curses placed upon specific lineages to be considered wholly acceptable, and therefore not at all racist, as long as the members of the cursed race are not said to have any unique biologically generated outward physical characteristics that set them apart and cause them to be easy to identify?

To phrase the question another way — Are such divine curses to be considered not racist as long as there are only less obvious biological identifiers present, like DNA, but not obvious outward biological identifiers like darkened skin?

in other words, In the realm of divine curses, is focusing on (for instance) dark skin foul and racist, while focusing on DNA is not?

 

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The unaddressed central question of this controversy that needs to be answered is this: Are divinely mandated curses placed upon specific lineages to be considered wholly acceptable, and therefore not at all racist, as long as the members of the cursed race are not said to have any unique biologically generated outward physical characteristics that set them apart and cause them to be easy to identify?

To phrase the question another way — Are such divine curses to be considered not racist as long as there are only less obvious biological identifiers present, like DNA, but not obvious outward biological identifiers like darkened skin?

in other words, In the realm of divine curses, is focusing on (for instance) dark skin foul and racist, while focusing on DNA is not?

 

The real question is if and why God would curse ANY of his children who made the first cut in the Great Council.

Less valiant?

Than who else who did not follow Satan?

I thought that was what the Telestial kingdom is for?!?

The story simple doesn't make sense. It teaches no lessons of value nor does it add to the Plan of Salvation.

Totally out of left field

It has no context. God does not curse his children who have not even been born. Ridiculous 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Quote

“During the publication of the ‘Come, Follow Me’ manual for 2020, there was an error that resulted in the printing of material that doesn’t reflect the church’s current views on the topic,”

Is this an admission that the referenced material used to be the Church's view on the topic?

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The language of both the Book of Mormon and current Church teachings are both clear.  Reconciling them is up to the individual.

The  official Church position is it "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse".

2nd Nephi 5 says:

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
            22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
            23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

Well the only way I can reconcile it is that black skin overall is not a sign of divine disfavor or curse.  But for the people in the above scripture it was used to help prevent inter marriage.   We cannot disavow Book of Mormon scriptures that is just smoke and mirrors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The real question is if and why God would curse ANY of his children who made the first cut in the Great Council.

Less valiant?

Than who else who did not follow Satan?

I thought that was what the Telestial kingdom is for?!?

The story simple doesn't make sense. It teaches no lessons of value nor does it add to the Plan of Salvation.

Totally out of left field

It has no context. God does not curse his children who have not even been born. Ridiculous 

Leaving our specific topic aside, do you believe we are all born exactly equal?  That we enter mortality on a completely level playing field as far as gospel progression?

I don't and I think scripture is clear on that.  And if we are not all created equal in spiritual progression I think some criteria had to be used by the Father in the placement we receive.  And again I think scripture indicates premortal actions help his decision making.

This goes against Church teachings. Do not use this forum to promote racist ideas.

Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree with this view. It may be turned into a positive thing because the difference between the online vs printed version could be used to teach the changes and why it can take time for change to occur as well as teach one shouldn’t just depend on one source for one’s study of the Gospel. 
 

I do hope there is additional active responses to this as opposed to simply altering the digital and leaving it at that.

Confusion is going to be costly and painful for people at some point. Some dear friends of ours have four children who have dark skin. As teenagers and priesthood holders, they did not even know about the Priesthood being withheld until 1979. I cannot imagine that it will be easy for them when they learn it. This is an example of something that must be officially repudiated for the health of believing members: none should be expected to believe that skin color was at any time a curse from God. 

  • Like 4
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...