Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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?

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

Why not? What's unreasonable about it? 

What was it, then? 

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.

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.

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"? 

 

Great!  Carry on.  If it works for you then I am happy for you. Such dissembling and mental gymnastics to try to make something that is clearly false and just another man made religion just does not work for me.  

[Teancum]

2 hours 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?

In my experience with you, you seem like a really angry nasty person. So I will pass interacting with you on this topic.  It is Mormonism that has a history of racism and its integrated in its keystone book and in its previous priesthood ban. I am not going to buy into your gaslighting and your typical bullying of people here(including believers) who don't agree with you. You are the one who is clueless as to how ludicrous most rational and critically thinking people view your approach.  And I See that you were not able to provide me with a biblical reference equivalent to the BoM language  I will leave this as a CFR.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

No it is not.  YOu need to do some work on this. I know believers and people that need to rely on faith (because their beliefs are without evidence) want to put non belief on the same platform. Desperately apparently. But you are simply wrong.  Maybe spend some time reading what atheists have to say on the topic before you continue to argues such a nonsensical position.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Great!  Carry on.  If it works for you then I am happy for you. Such dissembling and mental gymnastics to try to make something that is clearly false and just another man made religion just does not work for me.  

"Dissembling"?

Quote

Definition:

verb (used with object),dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling.

• to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of:to dissemble one's incompetence in business.
• to put on the appearance of; feign:to dissemble innocence.

verb (used without object),dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling.

• to conceal one's true motives, thoughts, etc., by some pretense; speak or act hypocritically.

Perhaps you might like to explain your accusing me of dissemblance? Or perhaps you used that word in ignorance of what it means?

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Such dissembling and mental gymnastics

Dissembling is lying….so you are saying believers, especially Stargazer, are liars?  And this isn’t nasty?

Edited February 26, 2024 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours 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.

I do not believe that God actually teaches anyone word by word, and of course I suspect you also see it that way IFF you actually still believe in such a being-BUT believers, imo, believe that revelation comes as feelings and ideas turned into our allegedly "fallen" (Babel) languages which turn God's "words" which are not words-into squiggles on a page, which other people, thousands perhaps years later interpret from those old squiggles into newer squiggles, by minds programmed by cultures so different from the original author- whoever we count as an "author"- that the whole process is far beyond "accurate"

In other words, fergitaboutit.

 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

"Dissembling"?

Perhaps you might like to explain your accusing me of dissemblance? Or perhaps you used that word in ignorance of what it means?

Squiggles start wars

[SeekingUnderstanding]

50 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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.

Exactly. Hiding behind this definition, eternal families, law of Chasity, etc are all excluded. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you have faith that Odin is not God? 

It's words- who cares?  If Odin was A supreme being who had all the attributes I think my interpretation of God does, then I worship Odin.

It's a name or title like "Heavenly Father" instead of "Eloheim".   Another time, another language.

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's words- who cares?  If Odin was A supreme being who had all the attributes I think my interpretation of God does, then I worship Odin.

It's a name or title like "Heavenly Father" instead of "Eloheim".   Another time, another language.

Who cares?  So is Odin God for you? I think you are missing my point. Seems like for you anything goes.

[Teancum]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dissembling is lying….so you are saying believers, especially Stargazer, are liars?  And this isn’t nasty?

I did not think it in the lying realm.  Perhaps a poor choice of a word.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

Really the one who is racist here is not the "dumb Mormons" (how typically condescending of you.  The dumb mormons includes your prior so called prophets, seers and revelators).  What I am sick to death about is self proclaimed apologists like you tossing LDS leaders and other members, and ex mormons, under the bus because they are not as "enlightened as you.  What a gaslighter you are.

[Vanguard]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I did not think it in the lying realm.  Perhaps a poor choice of a word.

Ha! I had always thought 'dissembling' meant to come apart at the seems or some such which would make sense in the way I think you meant with Stargazer (though I ultimately do not agree with you).  I also had no idea it meant 'lying'. I think the word I mean to use is 'disassembling'. And here I thought I was an ace with vocabulary... ; )

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

**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.  

 

You have created and atnirely different church than the one I grew up with and believed in my entire adult life.  Whether it is what the church leaders want now or just they way you  and other navigate all the contradictions I do not know. But I do not recognize what you describe,  Not at all.  And my guess is most the GAs from 1830 to at least 2000 would not recognize at all what you describe.  And why should I believe you when you contradict Presidnet Nelson's comments about prophets and apostles always teaching the truth?  Sometime they don't?  Teach that out loud and see where you end up.

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

No it is not.  YOu need to do some work on this.

I've done plenty of work on it, thanks. And I continue to do so -- atheism happens to be a particularly interesting topic for me. That's why I am engaging with you on it. I want to know what you think, but I can only learn more by engaging with you, and this means I have to set myself in dialectic opposition to you. I don't intend insult.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I know believers and people that need to rely on faith (because their beliefs are without evidence) want to put non belief on the same platform.

Where is your evidence that God doesn't exist? Yes, I know it is logically impossible to prove a negative. At least, not this kind of negative. 

The problem is that I do have evidence, but it's not the kind of evidence that you will accept. Presumably you have conducted the same tests that I have conducted in order to acquire my evidence, but you have determined that your results lead to the opposite conclusion from mine. But it remains the case that you don't know that God doesn't exist. Hence your non-belief is on the same platform as my belief.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Desperately apparently. But you are simply wrong.  Maybe spend some time reading what atheists have to say on the topic before you continue to argues such a nonsensical position.

As far as desperation is concerned, I don't feel at all desperate about it. I'm sufficiently convinced (by my subjective evidence) that it doesn't dishearten me whatsoever to hear your negative arguments. I'm simply interested in the topic. If you choose to interpret my interested engagement with the topic as desperation, that's your prerogative. But you'd be wrong.

On the other hand, might I be justified in calling your attacks on the church desperate? When a person doesn't believe in the existence of God, that's one thing. Fair enough. But when that person spends an inordinate amount of time and effort (and you do spend a lot of time and effort here) arguing against God and/or the Church, that strikes me as desperate. And it seems to rise to the level of proselyting. What's the point of it, other than trying to convince people that you are right? The fact that there are believers here seems to attract your engagement, though perhaps you may be motivated by the same thing that motivates me -- which is the thrill of crossing friendly swords with someone on a subject dear to one's heart?

Ah, I remember the good old days when Teancum was here to defend the Church!

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not believe that God actually teaches anyone word by word

Ah, but here you'd be wrong. I know that God does this. Because he's done it with me.

[Stargazer]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I did not think it in the lying realm.  Perhaps a poor choice of a word.

Perhaps?

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

In my experience with you, you seem like a really angry nasty person. So I will pass interacting with you on this topic.  It is Mormonism that has a history of racism and its integrated in its keystone book and in its previous priesthood ban. I am not going to buy into your gaslighting and your typical bullying of people here(including believers) who don't agree with you. You are the one who is clueless as to how ludicrous most rational and critically thinking people view your approach.  And I See that you were not able to provide me with a biblical reference equivalent to the BoM language  I will leave this as a CFR.

Of course you will pass. Have you seen anyone denying Mormonism has a history of racism? The way you guys are screaming "squirrel!" to divert attention to your lack of engagement with scholarship after your attempts of baseless accusations is, unfortunately, typical. 

I clearly said I was going to have to do other things, so your attempt to accuse me of being unable to provide a biblical reference is just more of the same. You could easily google this since it is common knowledge for anyone acquainted with biblical criticism, but discussion is not your intent. This has been put up here so many times your claim to ignorance is unconvincing. Check out Job's black face, too!

 Jeremiah 14:2: Judah mourns, and her gates languish; they mourn [literally, are black] for the land, and the cry of Jerusalem has gone up.

 Lamentations 5:10: Our skin is hot [literally, black] as an oven, because of the fever of famine.

 Joel 2:6: Before them the people writhe in pain; all faces are drained of color [literally, gather blackness].

Nahum 2:10: She is empty, desolate, and waste! The heart melts, and the knees shake; much pain is in every side, and all their faces are drained of color [literally, gather blackness].

 

 

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You have created and atnirely different church than the one I grew up with and believed in my entire adult life.  Whether it is what the church leaders want now or just they way you  and other navigate all the contradictions I do not know. But I do not recognize what you describe,  Not at all.  And my guess is most the GAs from 1830 to at least 2000 would not recognize at all what you describe.  And why should I believe you when you contradict Presidnet Nelson's comments about prophets and apostles always teaching the truth?  Sometime they don't?  Teach that out loud and see where you end up.

You don't believe modern prophets and prefer the old. Yet there are in your face quotes, from LDS.org, that we are to follow current prophets and that there have been mistakes made. Do I have to find that for you (again), too? 

So here we are. You demand that we only pay attention to previous generations and the church and I demand that you pay attention to current teachings. Is that why you ignore the quote I put up about the latest, very new, official statement? And you wonder why we are sick of playing with race baiters? 

[juliann]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You have created and atnirely different church than the one I grew up with and believed in my entire adult life.  Whether it is what the church leaders want now or just they way you  and other navigate all the contradictions I do not know. But I do not recognize what you describe,  Not at all.  And my guess is most the GAs from 1830 to at least 2000 would not recognize at all what you describe.  And why should I believe you when you contradict Presidnet Nelson's comments about prophets and apostles always teaching the truth?  Sometime they don't?  Teach that out loud and see where you end up.

Well, heaven forbid the church should do exactly what it has always claimed...."continuing revelation." 

Go do some reading on these topics in LDS.org. We can't help it if the church moving on bothers you. I hope to see a lot more changes and I'm sure there will be. If it enrages you to encounter more very needed enlightenment, maybe stop reading it? I found my life improved when I stopped watching political cable channels. Just sayin'.

[juliann]

Here is something from Armand Mauss, a well respected scholar who never took sides. Check out the date. This is how long you guys have studiously ignored and refused to engage in readily available scholarship on these matters. This was just the beginning. (I know because I started this up with FAIR) But I'll bet you will go another 20+ years with the race baiting instead of engaging. It is sort of a finger in ears, "lalalalalala" response.  

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2003/the-lds-church-and-the-race-issue-a-study-in-misplaced-apologetics

Quote

 

Neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot be so interpreted unless we start with the scenario itself and project it retrospectively upon the scriptural passages in proof-text fashion. For if we set aside the darkened glass of this contrived scenario, we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals.4 The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription.5 At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham’s son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed!6 There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It’s true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black,7 but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time.8 There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.

Much of the conventional “explanation” for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nineteenth-century Europe and America, especially from the slavery justifications of the antebellum South.9 Understandable–even forgivable–as such a resort might have been for our LDS ancestors, it is neither understandable nor forgivable in the twenty-first century. It is an unnecessary burden of misplaced apologetics that has been imposed by our history upon the universal and global aspirations of the Church. Until we dispense with it once and for all, it will continue to encumber the efforts of today’s Church leaders and public affairs spokespersons to convince the world, and especially the black people of America, that the Church is for all God’s children, “black and white, bond and free, male and female.”10

 

 

[juliann]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

 

But it  isn't disagreeing with me, is it. It is disagreeing with official church statements, scholarship, and plain common sense. (BLACK skin in that region? Really?) 

We probably all have to work on racism, but racists who insist on holding on to discarded ideas when there are other options are stupid .... they are LDS or not. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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!!!”

Stop complaining about unfairness that is temporary or you will be crushed at the bottom of a much more extreme version of the pecking order you decry FOR ETERNITY!

Can I use this the next time I need an example of how terrible people create terrible gods in their own image?

See you in the telestial I guess.

[ZealouslyStriving]

When ancient Israel's priests were not doing things correctly, where could the people go to offer their sacrifices? They had to go to the same priests at the same temple.

To me that same precedent applies...

If church leaders, past or present, are in error in their teachings or policies, they are still the authorities through whom access to eternal temple covenants goes. So I need to worry about myself and my eternal covenants and temple duty and let the Lord regulate His High Priest.

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

[juliann]

4 hours 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. 

The Bible uses "black" or it's equivalent to mean famine, sin, desolation, etc. I'm pretty sure Dan is aware of that so I wouldn't take this blurb as his entire take. There is another parallel verse that uses this same style but rather than black and white uses righteous/unrighteous. I'm going by memory here so that may not be exact. I haven't looked for it beause I am tired of those who come here to shoot bullets at our feet and demand we dance on command. Over and over and over. I used to keep data bases because of this but now I have to go look for the same 'ol stuff each and every time while you all pretend we haven't had this exact conversation multiple times. 

That is what the EVs used to do, BTW. We stopped it by having those data bases to simply cut and paste in response to their cut and paste (plus scholarship which they couldn't counter.) It's kind of sad to see those same approaches used here by people who have been around long enough to know better. 

I don't feel like dancing for your pleasure right now. So how about you read Nephi or Alma and find that scripture?