Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This is a lingering problem within the church caused by their failure to clearly communicate the disavowal of their past racist doctrine. 

That a large percentage of church membership still believe dark skin is a curse is evidence the church needs a first presidency member to unmistakably communicate today’s church doctrine on race 

If the church spent as much energy on race policy as they have their gay policy  no one would misunderstand modern church race doctrine 

 

What is your measure by which to claim "a large percentage of church membership..."?  

Link to post
2 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is your measure by which to claim "a large percentage of church membership..."?  

I can't speak for Fair Dunkim, but I suspect it's based on the assumption that a large percentage of church membership believe (or claim to believe) in The Book of Mormon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 1/18/2020 at 7:57 PM, mfbukowski said:

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.

Agreed.  Maybe we could talk the correlation committee into inserting a few strategically placed ellipses in the BoM😉

  • Like 3
Link to post
48 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  Maybe we could talk the correlation committee into inserting a few strategically placed ellipses in the BoM😉

Virtual rep point for you! 😁

Link to post
On 1/18/2020 at 10:38 PM, Tacenda said:

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

What choo talkin bout? It is just as literal as the scales which cover their eyes...

Link to post

The Book of Mormon never says that all people with a darker skin tone are that way due to a curse from God.  The quote in the manual doesn't say that either.  This is one specific group of people that we're talking about.  No need to universalize it.

Edited by Rivers
  • Like 4
Link to post
10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you explain the difference between the sign of the curse and the curse in practical terms.  If you’ve got the sign of the curse (dark skin) as a marker so that righteous members don’t mix their seed with you, how is that any different from being cursed?   
 

As for me representing this position as the current official position of the church, you are quite mistaken there.  Re-read my posts, I know these are old teachings, the fact that a portion of them made their way into a manual published in 2020, translated into many languages and distributed internationally, is very concerning.  I want to see the church do more to correct the record, than just updating the online manual and conducting an interview with an SLTrib writer.  
 

I shared this article with my Bishop this afternoon and asked that he discuss with ward leaders and come up with a plan to address this proactively.  I care about my church and want to see us do better.  

I would be surprised if the bishop takes this upon himself and addresses it.  This is bigger than ward or even stake boundaries.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Rivers said:

The Book of Mormon never says that all people with a darker skin tone are that way due to a curse from God.  The quote in the manual doesn't say that either.  This is one specific group of people that we're talking about.  No need to universalize it.

Except the church did universalise it in policy until 1979 and (sometimes stated) doctrine.

Link to post
12 hours ago, blueglass said:

Question 13:  Many latter day saints under your stewardship may have questions about why the church still believes 2 Nephi 5:21 notwithstanding the revelation received in 1978 .  Which response best describes the church's position on this matter?

How about j) 2 Nephi 5:21 had nothing to do with the priesthood ban or its lifting. The Church's position on both subjects is found in Come Follow Me and Gospel Topics essays, respectively.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Except the church did universalise it in policy until 1979 and (sometimes stated) doctrine.

CFR that the Church used 2 Nephi 5:21 to justify the priesthood ban.

 

Edited by CV75
Link to post
4 hours ago, ERMD said:

I would be surprised if the bishop takes this upon himself and addresses it.  This is bigger than ward or even stake boundaries.

When I met with him yesterday, he said he hadn't heard about this issue, but agreed to read the SLTrib article I gave him and discuss how to appropriately address this at a ward level.  I recommended that he might want to proactively communicate more broadly than just in Sunday School class so that all the members who don't attend SS could get the information.  I'm going to follow up next week to see how it goes.  I think at the least we can address this locally in a way that is respectful.  The church has updated the online curriculum to correct for what they clearly acknowledge is a mistake that doesn't reflect the current position of the church on this topic.  Whether the church decides to more formally communicate this correction out is yet to be seen.  I hope they do.  

  • Like 1
Link to post

The BoM is obviously fallible, and the "dark skin" comment is proof of it.

I cannot find an official quoting or use of 2 Nephi 5:21 to justify the priesthood ban.

The 1949 letter from the FP to the BYU president basically says it is a commandment from God, but we don't know why.  WW said basically the same thing in 1897.  I think it was Apostle Rudger Clawson who said the lack of pre-mortality valor condemned those spirits to a black skin in this life.

Obviously no one knew 'why' it was so, just that it was so.

Before anyone jumps all over me about just accepting counsel, remember our meeting down at Mountain Meadows this afternoon.

Edited by JamesBYoung
Link to post
On 1/19/2020 at 2:40 AM, 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/

It's not racist doctrine. The scripture clearly states that the Lamanites were cursed with a dark skin.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

The BoM is obviously fallible, and the "dark skin" comment is proof of it.

I cannot find an official quoting or use of 2 Nephi 5:21 to justify the priesthood ban.

 

If memory serves, it was primarily material from the Pearl of Great Price that people connected to the ban. That and the biblical "curse of Ham" and the equally preposterous Cain theory.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Except the church did universalise it in policy until 1979 and (sometimes stated) doctrine.

Good comeback, yes they did. And it will and has come back to bite them. This mistake with leaving in the scripture, needs to be addressed this coming conference or with a letter read over the pulpit at church. And with an apology about the racist policy, because many in the church still haven't read the essays, it's not really talked about much. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

CFR that the Church used 2 Nephi 5:21 to justify the priesthood ban.

Brigham Young used the fact of the seed of Cain being the first to be cursed as a way to emphasize the gravity of it and the punishment. Mark E. Peterson in 1966 echoed this as well by comparing the Lamanites and seed of Cain as both being cursed with dark skin, Cain's curse being worse.

The church, as recently as Spencer W. Kimball, taught that the Lamanites who were in the LDS placement program were getting whiter and delightsome due to their acceptance of the gospel, as was taught previously.

I think we can say that the newer revelation (through the BOM) bolstered the Biblical traditions of cursed lineages while later the reversal of the priesthood ban made it easier to discontinue the parallel notions about Lamanites' skin. 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Like 2
Link to post

In my view, a church that thrives on revelation from Prophets and personal...that those who were in charge of this manual would have woke up with a brainfart that said something is wrong.  Fix it.

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

In my view, a church that thrives on revelation from Prophets and personal...that those who were in charge of this manual would have woke up with a brainfart that said something is wrong.  Fix it.

If revelation were a super power, yes, but its clear that revelation is not what many people imagine it to be.  

  • Like 2
Link to post

Nephites and Lamanites were from the same family. Unless the Lamanites intermarried with already existing populations of another race, they would be of the same race, so racism would have nothing to do with the curse which was the result of Laman and Lemuel’s murderous rebellion against their parents and younger brothers. The purpose of curse/sign-of-the-curse was to preserve a more righteous portion of the Lehite family and insure the ultimate redemption of his family that God promised to Lehi. At times, elements of the divided family turned from their original paths, but eventually they were reunited at the coming of the Savior. The curse/sign-of-the-curse was completely removed.

Later, the people again divided, but this time on political and religious grounds. Both the Lehite and Lamanite clans eventually became degenerate beyond description.The triumph of the Lamanite faction was not over a righteous people, but over one that was even more lost and depraved. I don’t think the Book of Mormon account taken in context is an example of racism. One would be mistaken to use it to justify racial supremacy. The BoM does not say God reinstated the curse/sign-of-the-curse. Instead, it gives this prophecy with a warning about judging:

Quote

Mormon 5: 15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
16 For behold, the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with their fathers; and they are without Christ and God in the world; and they are driven about as chaff before the wind.
17 They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father.
18 But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.
19 And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land.
20 But behold, it shall come to pass that they shall be driven and scattered by the Gentiles; and after they have been driven and scattered by the Gentiles, behold, then will the Lord remember the covenant which he made unto Abraham and unto all the house of Israel.
21 And also the Lord will remember the prayers of the righteous, which have been put up unto him for them.
22 And then, O ye Gentiles, how can ye stand before the power of God, except ye shall repent and turn from your evil ways?

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2
Link to post
13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

What is your measure by which you ask this question 

Your lack of presenting data to support your conclusion is my measure.

 

Edited by provoman
  • Like 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Brigham Young used the fact of the seed of Cain being the first to be cursed as a way to emphasize the gravity of it and the punishment. Mark E. Peterson in 1966 echoed this as well by comparing the Lamanites and seed of Cain as both being cursed with dark skin, Cain's curse being worse.

The church, as recently as Spencer W. Kimball, taught that the Lamanites who were in the LDS placement program were getting whiter and delightsome due to their acceptance of the gospel, as was taught previously.

I think we can say that the newer revelation (through the BOM) bolstered the Biblical traditions of cursed lineages while later the reversal of the priesthood ban made it easier to discontinue the parallel notions about Lamanites' skin. 

But to the specific question that the Church used 2 Nephi 5 used to defend the priesthood ban. And the priesthood ban would mean 2 Nephi 5 was used to deny those believed to be lineage of Ham could not receive the Priesthood.

Edited by provoman
Link to post
28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Brigham Young used the fact of the seed of Cain being the first to be cursed as a way to emphasize the gravity of it and the punishment. Mark E. Peterson in 1966 echoed this as well by comparing the Lamanites and seed of Cain as both being cursed with dark skin, Cain's curse being worse.

The church, as recently as Spencer W. Kimball, taught that the Lamanites who were in the LDS placement program were getting whiter and delightsome due to their acceptance of the gospel, as was taught previously.

I think we can say that the newer revelation (through the BOM) bolstered the Biblical traditions of cursed lineages while later the reversal of the priesthood ban made it easier to discontinue the parallel notions about Lamanites' skin. 

I can see you are trying to make some connections and shortcuts to support your assumption, but this doesn't satisfy the CFR or establish that the Church used 2 Nephi 5:21 to justify the priesthood ban.

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...