Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Atheists are eager to point out that for the most part they are "moral" people who have no need for religion, and I agree, BUT I would argue that this alone, the opinion that there IS NO GOD becomes a faith based belief itself.  There is no scientific evidence FOR God or against God's existence, so neither position can be seen as "true" using the paradigm that all true statements must be supported by "evidence", while also insisting, without evidence, that there is NO God.

So despite their protests, I would argue that even Atheism is a kind of a religious position.

No this is simply incorrect. Atheism does not promote a belief nor ask anyone to have faith that there is not a god.  It simply is a lack of belief in any claimed divine gods or beings.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

For the same reason that artwork depicting BoM events are shot through with artifacts of western European culture. In the absence of any serious or studied thought about the cultural assumptions of the writers of a text, the default reading will always be for the reader to impose their own cultural context. 

It takes real skill to think outside one's own cultural miliue. It's one of those "does a fish know it's wet?" situations. If a reader doesn't know if there are alternative cultural assumptions to be applied, they won't even look for those alternates. Their own cultural jingosim then becomes the plain and obvious reading of the text.

That is a nice get out of jail free card. I would assume prophets and apostles would understand what their keystone text says and means and then base their teachings on it.  Which is what they did. If they cannot figure this one out since you all seem tp easily do so, well they seem pretty worthless as prophets, seers and revelators.

Edited February 25, 2024 by Teancum

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No this is simply incorrect. Atheism does not promote a belief nor ask anyone to have faith that there is not a god.  It simply is a lack of belief in any claimed divine gods or beings.

Technically, it depends on how someone is defining faith (because one definition is a strongly held belief or theory, which can be applied to atheist's beliefs about God not existing), but I actually agree with you because I think trying to turn atheism into a 'faith-based' belief system, even if it can technically be justified, doesn't work.

Yes, atheism is a belief system but it's an evidence-based one, which is--for the intents of the context of this discussion--the opposite of a faith-based belief system because we are talking about the scientific definition of the phrase 'evidence-based.'  And ultimately atheists have the right to define themselves based on their use of those terms.

What atheists should be more willing to admit however is that the same is true for people with faith-based belief systems.  They also have a right to define themselves based on their understanding of certain terms, and faith-based belief systems also depend on evidence, just not often evidence that can be scientifically studied. 

From a certain perspective, faith-based and evidence-based belief systems are on opposite and contradictory sides of the coin, but from other perspectives, they can be viewed as less contradictory as well.  

Both sides sometimes get caught up in trying to define the other side by applying descriptions that they know the other side doesn't agree with, but that they believe bolsters their own arguments.  If you are trying to get people who already agree with you to agree some more, then that's a good way to do it. 

But if you are trying to understand a different perspective and to meaningfully engage with it, then that's a dumb way to go about building that bridge.

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is a nice get out of jam free card. I would assume prophets and apostles would understand what their keystone text says and means and then base their teachings on it.  Which is what they did. If they cannot figure this one out since you all seem tp easily do so, well they seem pretty worthless as prophets, seers and revelators.

Does this go in both directions? Was Moses a worthless prophet because he had no knowledge of modern American culture? Was Isaiah a worthless prophet because he didn't use the cultural language of the early 21st century? 

Prophets are not expected to teach in any other cultural stew than the one they themselves were marinated in. Consequently, ignorance of other cultures not their own is hardly a disqualifying attribute.  And if a prophet has no knowledge of cultures beyond their own, they will instead use their own cultural understandings as a prism to interpret the past.

Does this mean they don't understand the text? No, they absolutely understand the text--as it applies to the people they are teaching. However, they do not necessarily understand the text as it was received by the people who produced it. 

To argue otherwise would be to believe that a prophet can't be a prophet without understanding the cultural milliue of the ancient near east, the Babylonian and Persian and Roman empires, the Maya city-states of the late pre-classic, and early American frontier culture. Whew, there's not even many academics who have that sort of resume.

Prophets are fallible. Prophets are human. Prophets mess up, screw up, fall down. So, it's a good thing that prophets are only one of many tools that Our Father gives us to suss out truth.

 

Edited February 25, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It takes real skill to think outside one's own cultural miliue. It's one of those "does a fish know it's wet?" situations. If a reader doesn't know if there are alternative cultural assumptions to be applied, they won't even look for those alternates. Their own cultural jingosim then becomes the plain and obvious reading of the text.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We use our culture and our biases to determine what is "plain and obvious".  If the text is coming from a different culture that the person reading doesn't recognize or understand, their interpretation is going to have flaws.  This will be even more magnified the more different the cultures are.

 

21 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Prophets are not expected to teach in any other cultural stew than the one they themselves were marinated in.

IMO, this is the real "issue behind the issue" of these race based interpretation -- and the main question around the entire history of the priesthood and temple ban -- what does it say about the process of revelation? In many ways, I substantially agree with these comments. Prophets and apostles sometimes seem to confuse what is "plain and obvious" based on their current cultural milieu as "revelation." Because they sometimes confound "common knowledge" with "revelation," they get things wrong. Or maybe, moral truth is not fixed and static, but morphs and changes as the cultural milieu changes?

For me, this is the central issue of my faith crisis. If prophets and apostles cannot see truth past their own cultural blinders, maybe they aren't reliable sources of truth -- especially when what they claim is true lines up nicely with the prevailing beliefs and attitudes of the culture they grew up in.

Pres. Nelson once claimed that the prophets and apostles "always teach truth." [emphasis in original]. What I see these comments suggesting is that Pres. Nelson's claim should really be more like, "always teach truth intermingled with cultural biases, but we as prophets and apostles won't always know what is truth and what is cultural bias."

 

 

Edited February 25, 2024 by MrShorty

[juliann]

On 2/21/2024 at 9:03 PM, 2BizE said:

Why are there so many theories and excuses for racism in the BoM? Why not just own it, accept it, apologize and improve?

Because it's not there. Hello? The only excuse to insert it is by claiming JS wrote it. But if he didn't, it is an ancient text which would read like ancient texts. So we have two groups, well, three actually. Dumb Mormons who don't know about metaphor in ancient texts or are outright racist, those who are educated enough in biblical scholarship to understand meanings, and those who don't think the BOM is real and have a dog in the fight to race bait.

If you can't tell, I am sick to death of the race baiting when it has been so well explained here. Endlessly. So be racist. But leave us out of it. 

[juliann]

On 2/20/2024 at 12:11 PM, jkwilliams said:

Stumbled across this apologetic, which is a doozy. 

The gist of it is that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Lamanites being given a skin of blackness, it means that the skins they wore as clothing were black, whereas the Nephites wore “white and delightsome” skins. In short, these were fashion choices similar to gang colors. 

As Dan McClellan put it, this is “not a good theory.” 

Lazy much? Engage with the reasoning given that might support it if you are going to diss it here. I believe she gave 3 theories and was not pushing this as the one. ARE there 3 theories going around? Hm? Isn't that the point? What about the others or is it just easier to go after the weaker one to avoid having to do any work yourself?

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

But the text says a SKIN of DARKNESS and it was placed so that the Lamaintes would be LOATHSOME to the Nephites.  And if it does not take a lot to figure out that it is not talking about skin color why didn't at least ever LDS leader through SWK says it was SKIN COLOR?  Why did the early LDS leaders talk about marrying Native Americans and having children with them so their posterity would start to have their skins whitened?

If you insist upon it, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure I can't change your mind.

Just because there's a tradition about something that was once held by church leaders in the past, doesn't necessarily give the tradition extra weight. Elder Bruce R. McConkie had something to say about a certain old tradition that in 1978 was tossed fully aside. I believe that one church leader thought that the landing place of Lehi's colony was along Chile's coast. Was it? I sure don't know, but I doubt it, just on general principles. Everyone has an opinion. As for skin color in general, weren't the people of Lehi of darker skin tone than, say, Europeans of the same time period? Was that a mark of divine disfavor? Early LDS leaders were under the same influence as the general population among whom they grew up in. 

I see no purpose in maintaining the erroneous traditions of the past. But of course certain folks like to do so, since it gives them a colorable justification to sneer down their noses of the Church and its leaders and members. 

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But the text says a SKIN of DARKNESS and it was placed so that the Lamaintes would be LOATHSOME to the Nephites.  And if it does not take a lot to figure out that it is not talking about skin color why didn't at least ever LDS leader through SWK says it was SKIN COLOR?  Why did the early LDS leaders talk about marrying Native Americans and having children with them so their posterity would start to have their skins whitened?

Oh for heaven's sakes. Remember when the articles from the EV scholars came out that said they had lost the battle because the EVs didn't engage with the very, very, very available LDS scholars? Learn from it. GOOD GRIEF! Are you really that clueless about how black is used in the Bible? 

As for LDS leaders....what the heck does that have to do with the BOM text? They misinterpreted the Bible along with other religions, too. So is it racist because they were? What is wrong with you people? 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

No this is simply incorrect. Atheism does not promote a belief nor ask anyone to have faith that there is not a god.  It simply is a lack of belief in any claimed divine gods or beings.

LOL! Then why did Christopher Hitchens pay for adverts on London's buses encouraging people to stop worrying about God?

I suppose he might have simply intended this as a public service announcement, but it does seem to rise to the level of proselyting for atheism. IMHO, anyway.

Just for information, in case there's interest, Matt Baker's Useful Charts YouTube channel posted this just a few days ago:

 

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

What is wrong with you people? 

It has various names, including "The Law of the Instrument," "The Law of the Hammer," "Maslow's Hammer (or Gavel)," or "The Golden Hammer." This is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool. Abraham Maslow wrote in 1966, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail."

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

No this is simply incorrect. Atheism does not promote a belief nor ask anyone to have faith that there is not a god.  It simply is a lack of belief in any claimed divine gods or beings.

"Lack of belief" indicates a position on the issue assuming one sees it that way.  By STATING one's lack of belief, you have put yourself into the category of "those who have no belief in God" which position itself prevents discrimination against atheists on a "religious" basis.

So if someone is an atheist, and the boss fires him when the boss learns he IS an atheist- the atheist could sue on the basis that atheism is protected as if it is a religion.

SO PRAGMATICALLY- for all practical purposes, atheism is SEEN AS a religion by the supreme court.

And they therefore benefit from persecution that way, no matter of how strong that they do not want that protection, I suppose.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html#:~:text=The Supreme Court has recognized,S.

Quote

 

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”   In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”  Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted).   As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one's own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.   But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479.   In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.   Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”  Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680.   Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion.  Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.

It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate's request to form a new religious group should be granted is “the absence from the beliefs of a concept of a supreme being.”   See Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61(d)(3), cited in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, at *9. Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.   As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2024 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

IMO, this is the real "issue behind the issue" of these race based interpretation -- and the main question around the entire history of the priesthood and temple ban -- what does it say about the process of revelation? In many ways, I substantially agree with these comments. Prophets and apostles sometimes seem to confuse what is "plain and obvious" based on their current cultural milieu as "revelation." Because they sometimes confound "common knowledge" with "revelation," they get things wrong. Or maybe, moral truth is not fixed and static, but morphs and changes as the cultural milieu changes?

For me, this is the central issue of my faith crisis. If prophets and apostles cannot see truth past their own cultural blinders, maybe they aren't reliable sources of truth -- especially when what they claim is true lines up nicely with the prevailing beliefs and attitudes of the culture they grew up in.

Pres. Nelson once claimed that the prophets and apostles "always teach truth." [emphasis in original]. What I see these comments suggesting is that Pres. Nelson's claim should really be more like, "always teach truth intermingled with cultural biases, but we as prophets and apostles won't always know what is truth and what is cultural bias."

 

 

**below is and explanation of why the thing that was a central issue of your faith crisis has not been a struggle for me.  It's not an attempt to argue with you or tell you why your conclusions are wrong.**

 

I like how the church is so heavily focused right now on hearing God for ourselves and how there is so much room in the church to disagree with the "appendage" teachings. 

When I think about all of the things in the past that prophets and apostles might have been/were wrong about, I ask myself, which ones were members forced to accept and act upon (which ones did they have to affirm as true to be members in good standing and receive access to all of God's covenants, and which ones required members to behave in specific ways to affirm those beliefs)? 

I can't think of any from my point of view (though I could be forgetting about something and other people's opinions on what they've gotten wrong will vary).  For me that's a lightbulb realization for two reasons. First, it says to me that the prophets and apostles are very trustworthy.  They aren't perfect but their track record for the essential stuff is impressive and God doesn't struggle to get the essential messages and needed behaviors across.  Second, to me it means that God has set up His church so that members can sustain prophets and apostles without having to endorse or support their weaknesses and fallibility in order to participate.  We've basically be told to "trust but verify" through the spirit, but in those places where we believe God is telling us something different the church is specifically set up to allow us freedom to move in our own sphere to an incredible degree.  That's both good and bad of course, because our track record isn't going to necessarily be any better than the prophets and apostles, so sometimes we have the freedom to be wrong-but as long as we are correctable that can also be a great blessing.

For some, none of that means much, but it does to me because I have the same weaknesses and fallibility in my own life that the prophets and apostles have, and I want to belief that God is still capable of using me to do His will, and that my children are still able to learn from me and receive from me the things they need, in spite of my misunderstandings and mistakes.

(I agree with you though that I think Pres. Nelson misspoke when he said that prophets and apostles always teach truth.  Sometimes they don't.  But I do think they do when it comes to testifying of Christ and teaching His gospel, and (for me) that's enough.  

 

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

For example, "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth: was once the accepted moral of a certain society.   Christ changed things.   Morals of the people changed as new relative perspectives emerged. 

Morals are no different from “truth”.  It is relative.  I thought you would be the one person who had my back on this, honestly.

It's just a semantic misunderstanding.  More to come in a day or two- some urgent personal stuff has popped up.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sakes. Remember when the articles from the EV scholars came out that said they had lost the battle because the EVs didn't engage with the very, very, very available LDS scholars? Learn from it. GOOD GRIEF! Are you really that clueless about how black is used in the Bible? 

As for LDS leaders....what the heck does that have to do with the BOM text? They misinterpreted the Bible along with other religions, too. So is it racist because they were? What is wrong with you people? 

So you are berating Teancum for believing at one time that prophets and apostles claimed they had some insight in the past?   But in reality, they did not have any authoritative statements on what is taught in the Book of Mormon?  Interesting position for a believing member to take.  

And yes, past statements were indeed racist.  That is not being debated is it?  

Now we got people who do not speak with any divine throwing out their own opinions they have on the black skin curse and we are now expected to adopt those theories???

As you said, Good Grief.

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

So you are berating Teancum for believing at one time that prophets and apostles claimed they had some insight in the past?   But in reality, they did not have any authoritative statements on what is taught in the Book of Mormon?  Interesting position for a believing member to take.  

And yes, past statements were indeed racist.  That is not being debated is it?  

Now we got people who do not speak with any divine throwing out their own opinions they have on the black skin curse and we are now expected to adopt those theories???

As you said, Good Grief.

Do not speak with any divine? What? 

So now that it has become uncomfortable to be pressed into defending the so tired and lazy race baiting interpretation of an ancient text (if you want to do it to the BOM, you have to do it to the Bible,) you want to change the topic to demanding prophetic inerrancy. It's also old and tired. But whatever. New topic, new thread.   

And, no, you do not have to accept anything. Just stop the stupid race baiting or debate the scholarship.

[Nevo]

I guess I'm among the "dumb Mormons" and "lazy" learners for still thinking that Book of Mormon descriptions of skin color refer to skin color, but at least I'm in good company:

"Some LDS readers have interpreted descriptions of the Lamanites being 'dark' as cultural or symbolic rather than biological, but this appears to contradict the plain meaning of the text. . . . [T]here is a persistent tendency in the BoM to associate 'white' or 'fair' with goodness and desirability. The Nephites, including their prophets, often exhibit racial assumptions that are unacceptable in the 21st century" (Grant Hardy, The Annotated Book of Mormon, 101–102).

"The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them" (Come, Follow Me—For Home and Church: Living, Learning, and Teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Book of Mormon 2024 [Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2023], 33).

I would point out that the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham have similarly problematic references to skin color.

That said, I don't think the Book of Mormon is straightforwardly racist. I think Jared Hickman's "The Book of Mormon as Amerindian Apocalypse" and Kimberly M. Berkey and Joseph M. Spencer's "'Great Cause to Mourn': The Complexity of The Book of Mormon's Presentation of Gender and Race" offer important insights in this regard.

[Calm]

I don’t have a problem with people choosing to read it as skin color for themselves, though if it troubles them I would hope they explore alternative readings as a possible replacement.  It is insisting it is the plain or only reasonable way to read it that annoys me.

Edited February 26, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

Do not speak with any divine? What? 

Well being called a prophet used to mean some kind of divine authority from God.  Are you throwing that past claims of prophets out??

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

So now that it has become uncomfortable to be pressed into defending the so tired and lazy race baiting interpretation of an ancient text (if you want to do it to the BOM, you have to do it to the Bible,) you want to change the topic to demanding prophetic inerrancy. It's also old and tired. But whatever. New topic, new thread.   

I haven't heard anyone claiming that the Bible doesn't have some racist teachings in it.  Have you?  However, the BOM is the subject of this thread, hence bringing up these issues.

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

And, no, you do not have to accept anything. Just stop the stupid race baiting or debate the scholarship.

You keep accusing me and others of race baiting.  Just what do you consider race baiting that me or someone has said??  Because I feel pretty insulted getting that term hurled towards me.  I should at least know what your jabs are based on.

[Stormin' Mormon]

On 2/24/2024 at 11:02 AM, Teancum said:

Oliver Cowdrey

5.  However, in 1838 in Kirtland, Oliver confronted Joseph Smith with the charge of adultery with Fanny Alger, and with lying and teaching false doctrines.(Private Letter to Brother, Warren Cowdery, by Oliver Cowdery, Jan. 21, 1838)

6.  Joseph Smith denied this and charged Cowdery with being a liar.(History of the Church, vol. 3 pp. 16-18 and Elder's Journal, Joseph Smith, July 1838.)

7.  Church records now show Miss Alger was Smith's first "spiritual wife." Oliver was telling the truth!(Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 233)

 

Forgive me for beating this dead horse, but I had previously only focused on the Martin Harris list. Enjoying my slow relaxing Sunday evening, I went back to read the lists compiled on behalf of the other two witnesses, and these three points caught my eye and made me laugh.

First, this is one point stretched over three points. Perhaps so the original author can make their list appear bigger than it really is? They employed a similar stretch-a-point-across-multiple-numbers tricks on the other lists as well.

And secondly, I laughed because I think the author forgot that this list was supposed to impeach the honesty of Oliver Cowdrey. Instead, they got so wrapped up in taking down Joseph, that they actually make a compelling point in favor of Oliver's integrity.

Thank you, Teancum, for posting your source on this. I don't expect you to defend the work done by someone else or respond to my critiques of it. This post isn't an attempt to score internet points at your expense. It's just something I found amusing.

Edited February 26, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t have a problem with people choosing to read it as skin color for themselves, though if it troubles them I would hope they explore alternative readings as a possible replacement.  It is insisting it is the plain or only reasonable way to read it that annoys me.

If this were fiction this would make sense but it purports to be history. I would rather go with what is more likely to be accurate than what I like.

If the Book of Mormon does not refer to darker skin then I would argue that God REALLY screwed up. That was the default assumption of what the text meant for virtually everyone who believed in it. It was in accordance with the Book of Abraham saying the same thing. God could have avoided a lot of trouble and racism by being more clear with the Book of Mormon (and Book of Abraham) translations. A couple of word tweaks and the Curse of Cain might still have been picked up from the local culture but it wouldn’t have had scriptural backing and the Lamanite curse would be understood differently.

The church repudiation of this as “racial folk beliefs” is silly. That implies it was something the unlearned passed around in local Sunday Schools and not that apostles for over a century were declaring it openly from the pulpit. The argument that the Nephites themselves were racist (in a different way of course) would make sense for the time period but the prophets in the Book of Mormon make that racism divinely sanctioned much like the Bible writers did with the ethnicities and nations they didn’t like. We are taught to trust that the Book of Mormon writers are revealing truth. If we are supposed to be critical of what they say that really needs to be taught.

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If this were fiction this would make sense but it purports to be history. 

Exactly. And if it is a historical text it ought to behave like a text from the purported time and place. Pointing out the ways that it does so behave should not be seen as some sort of unusual apologetic hoop jumping.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

f this were fiction this would make sense but it purports to be history. I would rather go with what is more likely to be accurate than what I like

History we can only really explore though through the text if it is not fiction however besides a few things said by Joseph that I don’t know if we can tell is from vision or some sort of revealed knowledge or his making assumptions. 
 

“then I would argue that God REALLY screwed up. That was the default assumption of what the text meant for virtually everyone who believed in it.”

If we choose to blame God for every racist, sexist, etc interpretation of scripture that has occurred over the years, we may as well throw out scripture. 

Personally I prefer scripture as an invitation to have personal encounters with God with me asking questions, including many prompted by the scriptures themselves than taking scripture as the end all of truth since people will screw that up unless God is standing next to them with a head slap every time they misstep. 

“Thatimplies it was something the unlearned passed around in local Sunday Schools and not that apostles for over a century were declaring it openly from the pulpit.”

Why would it imply that?  Apostles are from the folk as much as any one else in our church. We do not have an elite that goes to university to learn the proper way to interpret and revelate except the way everyone else does, through experience and exchanging ideas with each other. 

Edited February 26, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Exactly. And if it is a historical text it ought to behave like a text from the purported time and place. Pointing out the ways that it does so behave should not be seen as some sort of unusual apologetic hoop jumping.

 

But it is not just a historical text. It is a historical text delivered by angels to guide a people to righteousness. When it espouses racism that is a problem. It would actually make sense if it talked about racism but the prophet writers appear to buy into a lot of it. While there is some nuance in the text the plain meaning is that dark skin is either a curse from God or at least a mark associated with a curse from God.

Why? This could have been avoided.

[mfbukowski]

It's a pointless argument.

Unless of course you climb in your time machine and see if it was intended to be symbolic or literal- but even then, they would still be powerless to do anything about it.

Why the argument?

To the prophets, just tell them that they :  "Might have written something that might be misinterpreted in a thousand years"  ??

There's not much even they can do about it.

I just don't get it.