Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

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've quoted this twice on this thread alone. I don't know why you clipped the next sentence out: 

"The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood."

Nature according to Google means: "the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it"

Appearance: "the way that someone or something looks"

So, again, unless whomever came up with come follow me has a different working definition for these words...the plain reading should be clear: we don't know the basic or inherent features of the mark. We don't know what "skin of blackness" meant to Nephi

Gospel topics race essay gives even less wiggle space. 

As for the book of moses and Abr. Moses has the word black/ness in exactly two verses in the same chapter that never mentions skin at all. Rather it talks first of "a blackness" falling on them after describing a cursed land. It's then shorthanded after. Unless you're including cain getting marked...that passage doesn't even have "black" in it.

Abraham has even less. It just talks about "egyptus" when talking about ham. funny enough, if you go to the JST version of the OT passage where canaan's cursed, it describes it as "a veil of darkness" coming over them. Not skin. Veil. 

So you have to purposely interpret skin into the POGP passages. It's not spelled out there. 

None of the books make it explicitly clear that the only obvious interpretation could be genetic skin tone. 

I also mentioned, I sincerely get why it's a default. We still live in a culture where we default to assume racial differences since they've played so prominenly in how we oriented our societies. It was the dominant theory for the majority of the history of the churhc. I won't say it's dumb. But if you can't toggle the first sentence with the second sentence of a paragraph let alone explore and look at larger contexts to see that this isn't as clear as one may have come to assume...it is hard for me to see how that isn't at least a little lackadaisical, however unintendedly so.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 26, 2024 by BlueDreams

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

The problem here is that the church DID attribute the exclusion to God. And it's structure does not make itself accountable for that attribution.

We can be certain that there were many members who sought personal encounters with God, and drew conclusions opposite the church (in this and other issues). We know there are members who wrestled not just with the meaning in the scriptures, but also church policy and so-called doctrine and in good faith went to their church leaders with their opposing conclusions.

And yet what happened? 

It's not healthy or good for genuine believers to twist their minds and hearts to accommodate teachings/policies which offend their souls. 

I was a toddler when the 1978 Proclamation was released, and yet still, sixteen years later my peers were asking me why my church used to mistreat people like themselves. I wish I would have been strong enough to say, "My church was wrong, and I am sorry." But the best I could honestly say was "I don't know." 

I am very grateful that church policy changed, I am happy for those the change helped and for those who enjoy more spiritual enrichment and community as a result.

Yet what prevented me from saying the right thing "We (including the church) were wrong and I am sorry" instead of the insufficient thing, "I don't know" is still there, still the way the church operates and expects members to represent it.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

Dumb Mormons who don't know about metaphor in ancient texts or are outright racist,

So members who disagree with you are either stupid or racist?

17 hours ago, juliann said:

If you can't tell, I am sick to death of the race baiting

Then maybe stop race baiting?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

dupl

Edited February 26, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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.

 

In other words we are just about as good at getting thing right as the LDS prophets, seers and revelators are.  I think you and other apologists spend a lot of time telling us why in essence we should expect very little from your prophets.   The interesting thing is I don't think the LDS leaders would downplay their prophetic callings like you do.  tell me what do you think of this from a former prophet, seer and revelator and one time president of the church?

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

 

I don't insist on anything. I just am reiterating what the text says and how YOUR leader taught it. For at least 150 years.

 

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

This was far more than a tradition.

 

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

 

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.

Not a reasonable comparison.

 

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Everyone has an opinion.

This was more than an opinion.

 

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

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 don't believe Lehi nor his family were real people.

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I see no purpose in maintaining the erroneous traditions of the past.

I get why you all want to run away from it.  JUst chalk this up to another uncomfortable doctrine and teaching that Latter day Saints are embarrassed about and want to run away from all.

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

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. 

When your leaders publically address what you see are erroneous traditions specifically perhaps you have a valid argument.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sakes.

Such indignation. Typical coming from you.

 

15 hours ago, juliann said:

 

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? 

Good lord.  Take a chill pill.  
 

Feel free to show me where the in the Bible where the words skin of darkness was used to illustrate a curse and was placed on a people so that those who were not curse would fins the others loathsome.  Other wise step down off your pedestal and stop gaslighting.

 

15 hours ago, juliann said:

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?

So your you agree. Your prophets, seers and revelators don't understand the text of their keystone book of "scripture."  In other words you agree they are pretty useless. Thank you for making my point better than I could.

15 hours ago, juliann said:

 

What is wrong with you people? 

What is wrong is "we people" won't put up with the disingenuous and specious spin you and other self proclaimed defenders of the faith want to impose on us.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

The billboard is not a faith based proposition.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"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.

 

The SCOTUS opinion does not state that atheism is a religion. It simply protects it from the establishment clause and recognizes that people are free to worship how they wish or not to. Atheists coma in all sorts of variety and have all sorts of beliefs and opinions.  They don't claim there is no god and ask you to pray about it or take it on faith. They simply find uncompelling evidence that there is a god.  Do you have faith that Odin is not God?  

[juliann]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

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

 

So you are brand new here and have never participated in the endless discussions of prophetic infallibility. Or you forgot? Or you are pretending you have not heard the responses to this so you don't have to engage with them. Ever. 

Quote

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.

Go back and reread what I said. Then show me where the Bible has racist teachings in it rather than those who used it to support their racism. Better still, support your idea that your idea of racism was even a concept in Biblical (or BOM) times.  

 

Quote

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.

race-baiting

noun [ U ]

 mainly US disapproving (also race baiting)

 

US 

 

 /ˈreɪs ˌbeɪ.t̬ɪŋ/ UK 

 

 /ˈreɪs ˌbeɪ.tɪŋ/

 

Add to word list 

the act of intentionally encouraging racism or anger about issues relating to race, often to get a political advantage

 

race-baiting

[ reys-bey ting ]SHOW IPA

---

noun

1. acts of racist provocation, especially in speech and writing, including racial dog whistles, hate speech, threats, and other forms of harassment targeting one or more racial groups or members of such a group, often in the context of political or cultural polemics.

2. any rhetoric or act that pits one racial group against another or incites racial hatred.

[pogi]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

Because a higher law exists, society doesn't determine morality.  

You can postulate that a higher moral law exists, but you can't prove it objectively.  It is a relative belief or faith-based position only. 

Even if higher laws exist (and I believe they do), there is no objective way that we can decipher and all come to an indisputable/unquestionable agreement without relying on our individual perspective/limitation/filters. We are unavoidably experiencing a relative (in relation to what may be absolute) reality.  That seems to be part of the greater plan.   The veil of forgetfulness seems to inhibit and limit our perspective of the absolute, creating a relative reality.  

The higher law is the elephant.  Society are the blind men.  It's all spelled out in the parable.  Even if a higher law exists, relativity still determines our truth/morality, which may or may not correspond with THE TRUTH/morality. 

Edited February 26, 2024 by pogi

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't insist on anything. I just am reiterating what the text says and how YOUR leader taught it. For at least 150 years.

You insist upon things every time you post here. You've been insisting upon things for several years now. Once you stop posting here, or admit you're wrong about whatever thing it happens to be, then you can say you don't insist upon them.

And I'm not defaming you. I myself insist upon things here every time I post. I insist upon my deep conviction that the Book of Mormon is a true record of an actual group of people who lived somewhere in the Americas. Do you want to know why?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This was far more than a tradition.

So you say. What is "more than a tradition" in this case?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Not a reasonable comparison.

Why not? What's unreasonable about it? 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This was more than an opinion.

What was it, then? 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't believe Lehi nor his family were real people.

Well, I do believe that Lehi was a real person. 

But I was referring to the people from whom Lehi came from, not Lehi and his group. I.e. the people occupying the land of Israel around 600 BC. Apologies for not making myself clear enough.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I get why you all want to run away from it.  JUst chalk this up to another uncomfortable doctrine and teaching that Latter day Saints are embarrassed about and want to run away from all.

I'm not running away from it at all. I freely admit that some leaders in the past had wrong ideas about some things. And no doubt future leaders will have other wrong ideas about some things. I don't expect church leaders to be infallible.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

When your leaders publically address what you see are erroneous traditions specifically perhaps you have a valid argument.

I don't see why I don't have a valid argument already. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not require that I hold to the erroneous traditions or opinions of my church leaders. I'm perfectly happy to disagree with them when I feel they are wrong or incorrect. 

Church leaders offering up their opinions or speculations as to things not contained in the text of the Book of Mormon itself are of value only as matters of historical record. "Yes, he believed that, and talked about it here, here, and here. But he was wrong." This also pertains to things in the text that don't actually mean what they thought they meant. Such as the interpretation of black skin coloration meaning actual skin color. Because nobody in the New World had black skin, saying their skin was black cannot mean they were talking about skin color. It's similar to the use of the phrase "he has a black heart." Of course his heart isn't black (if it were he'd be dead). The phrase is a metaphor. 

I don't doubt that there might be details recorded in the Book of Mormon that are factually incorrect. Take Zoram, for example. Was he really as willing as the text indicates to abandon Jerusalem and his life therein to go with Lehi's party? Yes, he was Laban's servant, and Laban might not have been a pleasant man to serve -- but at Laban's death, would not Zoram then be freed anyway? Israel did not have chattel slavery like existed in other places, and Zoram might very well have had a family. The Law of Moses required that a slave or indentured servant be released after 7 years of service. In any case, Zoram might not have been a slave, per se, but merely an employee (the Hebrew word used for "slave" is also used for a servant, or even a highly ranked subordinate). So it is possible that Zoram did not actually want to go with Nephi out into the wilderness, but feared for his life if he didn't go. Which, if true, would contradict what is written in 1 Nephi 4:35. 

But from your perspective, I get it that talking about the Book of Mormon is somewhat akin to my having a discussion with someone who believes that Middle Earth is a real place. Have you seen the film "Galaxy Quest"? 

 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So members who disagree with you are either stupid or racist?

Then maybe stop race baiting?

It is almost always those who have issues with the church who double down on keeping it racist. It is very common for former members to retain their fundamentalism, which they use when they come here to keep alive no matter how often we correct them. It's tiresome. Especially when they want to rub their stuff in Black members faces. When does the ugly quote from BY come out to keep them in their place? That used to be standard stuff. 

Look up race baiting. Then don't pretend we regularly start threads to tell Black people how inferior they are. 

Then start engaging with the rebuttals to the racism being promoted here. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Such indignation. Typical coming from you.

 

Good lord.  Take a chill pill.  
 

Feel free to show me where the in the Bible where the words skin of darkness was used to illustrate a curse and was placed on a people so that those who were not curse would fins the others loathsome.  Other wise step down off your pedestal and stop gaslighting.

 

 

Yup. Race baiting deserves indignation. Or it should. 

Are you completely clueless how "black" is used in the Bible? Yet you feel qualified to come here and preach racist ideas you are bound and determined to keep in place no matter how much others have moved on?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

The billboard is not a faith based proposition.

Well, what is it, then? A non-faith-based proposition?

How can it NOT be a faith-based proposition? Could Hitchens (may he rest in peace) prove that God doesn't exist? You know very well that he used the word "probably" in that advert, when there was no way he could come up with any kind of probability statistic as to the likelihood that God doesn't exist. It takes exactly as much faith to believe God doesn't exist as to believe he does. Hence it IS a faith-based proposition.

In Stephen Hawking's last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions," of course the first "big question" was "Is There a God?" Hawking's answer was "No." Or rather, his answer was "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science."

"I think" in this case is functionally equivalent to "I believe," which is an expression of faith. 

In short, it is just as much a matter of faith to say there is no God, as it is to say there is a God. The question is non-falsifiable, which takes it out of the realm of science or probability, and into the realm of faith. 

 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

If it was metaphorical I think God during the translation process should have either altered the metaphor or done one of those asides we have in the Book of Mormon where it seems like the translator is clarifying a statement.

[juliann]

OK, race baiters. You would have much more success if you found a forum of racists. I'm sure there are some alt-right so called Mormons you could party with.  And why stop with Mormons? You can compile every horrid thing said or done before the Civil Rights Movement! You have endless resources! Be sure to keep the ugly alive. It's important. 

Meanwhile, this is the church's reality in this day and age:

 

 

https://utah.churchofjesuschrist.org/creating-communities-of-unity-and-belonging-void-of-contention-discrimination-division?gallery=/november-15-utah-area-broadcast-english&lang=undefined

A summary from the Trib:

Quote

 

General authority Seventy Christophe G. Giraud-Carrier recently delivered a warning to Latter-day Saint racists: You could lose your temple recommend.

In a November broadcast to lay leaders in the Utah Area, the native Frenchman called attention to “lingering instances of racist attitudes and behaviors” and called out those who foster such bigotry.

“Racism is a violation of the first two great commandments — to love God and to love his children. It is sufficiently serious that it may actually impact our opportunity of worshipping in the House of the Lord,” Giraud-Carrier said. “One of the temple recommend questions indeed asks: ‘Do you support or promote any teachings, practices or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?’”

And the global faith’s position against racism, he said, is “unequivocal.” It is a sin.

In a 2020 General Conference address, church President Russell Nelson urged members to “lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice.” His top counselor, apostle Dallin Oaks, echoed that theme, prodding Latter-day Saints to “do better to help root out racism.”

Giraud-Carrier added his voice to those pleas.

“Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent,” he told Beehive State church leaders. “Racism has no place in the Lord’s kingdom. It must stop, and it must stop now. … It is high time we stop excluding anyone and start including everyone.”

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yup. Race baiting deserves indignation. Or it should. 

Are you completely clueless how "black" is used in the Bible? Yet you feel qualified to come here and preach racist ideas you are bound and determined to keep in place no matter how much others have moved on?

The Book of Mormon (the most correct book on the Earth written for Joseph Smith’s day, translated by him into English) does not use terms the same way the Bible does. That’s the problem.

 

That said as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I’m all for Latter-day Saint efforts to reinterpret their scriptures in a non-racist way. I just wish they would hurry and write out the homophobia as well. There is way more prophetic, and scriptural support for racism than bigotry towards homosexuals. 

[SteveO]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If it was metaphorical I think God during the translation process should have either altered the metaphor or done one of those asides we have in the Book of Mormon where it seems like the translator is clarifying a statement.

Ironically, that would be evidence of it being a contemporary work.  
 

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-bookofmormon.html

Good read from Orson Card.  Fiction writers leave their fingerprints everywhere, because they want to show you how Awesome their ideas are.  They have to stop the narrative and show you, explain to you all the interesting things that might be foreign.  The only time the narrative stops to clarify in the Book of Mormon is the explanation of money and weights, which have clearly changed in the 400 years since the original story and Mormon’s compilation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Meanwhile, this is the church's reality in this day and age:

This is also the church in this day and age:

Quote

Using current definitions, some might call such divine actions and prophet-taught principles racist, but God, who is the loving Father of all nations, tribes, and ethnicities,32 cannot be branded as racist for His dealings with His children. Often the reasons for His plan are not known or understandable to mortals. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,” He said through the prophet Isaiah. “Neither are your ways my ways.”33

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/racism-other-challenges/

This seems an explicit reference to the "divine actions" taken by God in the book of Mormon. If they have nothing to do with skin color according to Oaks, why would they need to be excused? Again I support your efforts at renegotiating the scriptural text, but Oaks doesn't seem to be on board yet.

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The Book of Mormon (the most correct book on the Earth written for Joseph Smith’s day, translated by him into English) does not use terms the same way the Bible does. That’s the problem.

 

That said as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I’m all for Latter-day Saint efforts to reinterpret their scriptures in a non-racist way. I just wish they would hurry and write out the homophobia as well. There is way more prophetic, and scriptural support for racism than bigotry towards homosexuals. 

Thank you for engaging rather than wave of the hand accusing. I have things to do now and will get back to this.(I agree with your homosexual comment, but all the current prophetic stuff is not racist and we do believe new prophets supercede old.)

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

It is almost always those who have issues with the church who double down on keeping it racist. It is very common for former members to retain their fundamentalism, which they use when they come here to keep alive no matter how often we correct them. It's tiresome.

It can be a very difficult thing for someone to recognize that many of the interpretations used to rationalize or justify their disaffection with the Church is not Church doctrine at all. Instead I'll get comments like, "Maybe you don't see it that way... but most Mormons do," or "It's what I was taught growing up." Both of those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't mean it is true doctrine. As a Church we know we don't have everything and that we don't necessarily have everything right right now.

Edited February 26, 2024 by Nofear

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Both of those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't mean it is true doctrine

The more I engage with church apologists, the more I realize there is No True Doctrine.

[Kevin Christensen]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The more I engage with church apologists, the more I realize there is No True Doctrine.

There is this on what is, from Jesus, who should know, and what is not doctrine, and on the dire consequences of offering up anything more or less.

Quote

Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth. (3 Nephi 11:30-41)

Notably missing from the definition of "my doctrine" is any comprehensive list or reference to a Big Book of What to Think, or Orthodox Authority, or traditional understanding of any particular notion, let alone, anything about race whatsoever.  Definitive and telling in relation to that alternate foundation candidate are ongoing Repentance (which means to turn our minds), which includes not only repentance from sin, but also from ignorance, error and misinformation as an ongoing process, and seeking Holy Ghost (that is, ongoing revelation, rather than embracing a Big Book of What to Think).  Building one's foundation elsewhere is inviting catastrophic failure, which, of course, some have reason to invite.  They want the rhetorical advantage that pointing to spectacular failure bestows upon those who point and mock, and nevermind the problem of lacking a foundation themselves.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Canonsburg, PA

[teddyaware]

After reading some of the posts on this interminably long “road to nowhere” thread, I can’t help but be impressed with the fact those who are decrying the Lord’s temporary curse on the Lamanites are going to have put up with the same kinds of divinely decreed restrictive and exclusionary social arrangements in the afterlife, but with the added outrage that in eternity these divine decrees are going to be permanent in nature. This means that those who are now bravely condemning the Lord’s temporary earthly decrees of judgement on the Lamanites can look forward with joy to being able to spend eternity complaining about God’s “unfairness” in sending the majority of his children to kingdoms of less light and glory than the celestial kingdom. Who can think of a better way to spend eternity than to be a ‘forever social justice warrior’ who’s going to be everlastingly engaged in the good fight against the enemies of diversity, equity and inclusion? And one can only imagine how much more impassioned and eloquent our terrestrial and telestial social justice warriors will be when they realize that the inhabitants of the lower kingdoms of glory will have bodies that are endowed with less light, less glory, less intelligence, less wisdom, and less power than the bodies of the \exalted in the celestial kingdom! In fact, in his most recent General Conference address President Russell M. Nelson uttered the following highly distressing words:

‘Mortality is a master class in learning to choose the things of greatest eternal import. Far too many people live as though this life is all there is. However, your choices today will determine three things: where you will live throughout all eternity, the kind of body with which you will be resurrected, and those with whom you will live forever. So, think celestial’ (Russell M. Nelson, October 2023)

Yikes!! Yes, you read that correctly!! Those in the lower kingdoms of glory will have bodies (!!!) that are different from the bodies of those who are in the higher kingdoms of glory!! So why don’t all of you guys stop beating the dead horse of the temporary Lamanite curse, and get an early start on complaining about what really matters — that the post-resurrection kingdoms of heavenly glory are going to be terrible realms of never ending unfairness and injustice!! In the immortal word of Sheldon J. Plankton… “Let ‘em have it!!!”

Edited February 26, 2024 by teddyaware