juliann Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Page 12 on on this thread you said this to me. If you now are withdrawing the accusation, are you willing to apologize? You don't have to start talking about leather jackets or anything else. But you are basing your whole rant about race baiting on the idea that the Church leaders have some kind of different interpretation of those verses in the Book of Mormon that no longer are based on skin color. If the Church has moved on, just what is their official explanation on what is written in the Book of Mormon concerning the curse of God causing a black skin? If there are such statements, maybe a little educating us on what is now the official doctrine on those verses might be more helpful than accusing people of race baiting. It is a pretty hideous accusation to hurl at someone. I apologize. But I do stand behind the definition of race baiting in general and I think it fits what is going on here to a T. It is not a rant and you shouldn't diminish it as such. It is an ugly thing. We shouldn't have to put up with people coming here demanding we pledge allegiance to their interpretation of racist scripture while refusing to engage in anything but mindless accusations. Unless you can show me any substantive responses to what has been given to educate them, you don't have grounds for calling a well defined label a "rant" in order to dismiss it out of hand. This is where I lose patience. Why is it my job to educate those who come into my forum to attack my beliefs, and by extension me? Why aren't you responsible for looking up statements about a curse? Why don't you believe me? What do I stand to gain by lying about that? And why after telling you there is a disavowal, am I expected to google LDS.org? This is a big part of the reason why I don't see any honest attempt to understand or learn. It seems merely a thinly disguised opportunity for more accusations that my fundamental beliefs promote racism. Anybody want to go google LDS.org for CA?
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 2 minutes ago, Calm said: You will be able to rep points and start threads yourself as 25 points Sweet 😊
juliann Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said: And I respect your opinion on that. I would ask, politely, how you reconcile that view with Moses 7:8, 22? Can you post the verse itself please? Yeah, I'm lazy.
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 (edited) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng#subtitle1 Quote 6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents. 7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan; 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. 9 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked, and I beheld the land of Sharon, and the land of Enoch, and the land of Omner, and the land of Heni, and the land of Shem, and the land of Haner, and the land of Hanannihah, and all the inhabitants thereof; 10 And the Lord said unto me: Go to this people, and say unto them—Repent, lest I come out and smite them with a curse, and they die. 11 And he gave unto me a commandment that I should baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, which is full of grace and truth, and of the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son. 12 And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent; 13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him. 14 There also came up a land out of the depth of the sea, and so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off and went upon the land which came up out of the depth of the sea. 15 And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off; and there went forth a curse upon all people that fought against God; 16 And from that time forth there were wars and bloodshed among them; but the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness. 17 The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish. 18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them. 19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion. 20 And it came to pass that Enoch talked with the Lord; and he said unto the Lord: Surely Zion shall dwell in safety forever. But the Lord said unto Enoch: Zion have I blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed. 21 And it came to pass that the Lord showed unto Enoch all the inhabitants of the earth; and he beheld, and lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever. 22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 Just now, Calm said: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng#subtitle1 Thanks.. I'm doing this all on my cellphone, which I'm still trying to figure out.
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 Just now, ZealouslyStriving said: Thanks.. I'm doing this all on my cellphone, which I'm still trying to figure out. I have a lot of free time most of the time.
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 6 minutes ago, juliann said: Can you post the verse itself please? Yeah, I'm lazy. See calm's post 😕
juliann Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 4 minutes ago, Calm said: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng#subtitle1 Quote 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, This is straight out of the Bible's use of black as meaning exactly heat and barrenness (desolation) as black. Quote seed of Cain were black, Cain and Canaan have no connection. The usage of black here would be no different than the same Biblical usage. The point is, if there are alternative and valid explanations for black as unrelated to literal skin....why the heck would anyone demand it be skin?? It makes no sense to unnecessarily turn it into racism unless one needs that to justify ongoing racism. Or accusations of it.
juliann Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 Took me all of a few minutes to find this on LDS.org. Again, kinda old stuff. The church disavows black skin as a sign of a curse. OK? Enough? Or just another thing to ignore. Quote Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24 1
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 Verse 22 is easy imo if “black” is symbolic for wickedness or separation from the Spirit….without the light of the Spirit, they were “black”. The land was cursed with heat and barrenness, why would that have changed skin color? Quote 6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents. 7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan; The land is unfruitful because the people of Canaan destroyed the people of Shum. The blackness or spiritual separation from God is a result of the same.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 33 minutes ago, Stargazer said: What?! The church is supposed to repent of something written in the Book of Mormon? More like the prophetic guidance they have taught on the subject over the last century give or take. 1
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 1 minute ago, juliann said: This is straight out of the Bible's use of black as meaning exactly heat and barrenness (desolation) as black. Cain and Canaan have no connection. The usage of black here would be no different than the same Biblical usage. The point is, if there are alternative and valid explanations for black as unrelated to literal skin....why the heck would anyone demand it be skin?? It makes no sense to unnecessarily turn it into racism unless one needs that to justify ongoing racism. Or accusations of it. For me it doesn't matter if it's actual skin color or not. If it is and people want to get mad about it- it isn't my job to defend why God did it that way. The onus is on the one crying "racism" to reconcile it with his beliefs about God. One thing is abundantly clear: the Book of Mormon condemns racism and that's all I need to know. 1
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: More like the prophetic guidance they have taught on the subject over the last century give or take. What "guidance" was given exactly when they expressed those ideas?
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 (edited) 28 minutes ago, juliann said: Took me all of a few minutes to find this on LDS.org. Again, kinda old stuff. The church disavows black skin as a sign of a curse. OK? Enough? Or just another thing to ignore. It’s the top/first hit when I did a search on “black skin” for “all content”… In fact all of the hits on the first page (but one, which is an historical document) are disavowals of black skin as a sign of a curse. (The 6 or so quotes are going to take a bit, I need to save between quotes so as not to lose my work…) added: I particularly like the last one as the teacher is told to display the Church’s disavowal, have a student read it, and then discuss why any such speculation on skin color as a curse is wrong, which means this is taught to all youth in the Church who do institute (unless I am wrong and this isn’t a required or beginning class). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Quote Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction?lang=eng Quote Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that black people or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” For further information on this topic, see “Race and the Priesthood.” https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/training/black-members-of-the-church/section-4/africa?lang=eng Quote Immediate reactions to the announcement were positive (AV 1462), and the Church continues to witness significant growth among people of African descent. In 2013 the First Presidency authorized the publication of an essay titled “Race and the Priesthood,” which declared: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” Today black male members of the Church receive the priesthood and hold positions of leadership, and black men and women and their families participate in the ordinances of the temple. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-26-the-revelation-on-the-priesthood?lang=eng Quote Emphasize that today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past on this issue: black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse; black skin reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; mixed-race marriages are a sin; or blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. (See “Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics, lds.org/topics.) How can people’s faith in Jesus Christ help them resolve their questions or concerns about the priesthood restriction that existed before 1978? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/12/05-bowed-down-to-the-grave?lang=eng Quote Like other groups of Christians at this time, however, many white Saints wrongly viewed black people as inferior, believing that black skin was the result of God’s curse on the biblical figures Cain and Ham. Some had even begun to teach the false idea that black skin was evidence of a person’s unrighteous actions in the premortal life. Brigham Young shared some of these views, but before leaving Winter Quarters, he had also told a mixed-race Saint that all people were alike unto God. “Of one blood has God made all flesh,” he had said. “We don’t care about the color.” Establishing Zion beyond the Rocky Mountains granted the Saints an opportunity to create a new society where Jane, her family, and others like them could be welcomed as fellow citizens as well as Saints. But prejudices ran deep, and change seemed unlikely in the near future. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-56-official-declaration-2?lang=eng Quote “The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine” (“Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God,” Feb. 29, 2012, mormonnewsroom.org). “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form” (“Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essays, topics.lds.org). https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-priesthood-restored-podcast-episode-5-transcript Quote The reasoning he gave for the restriction was influenced by an idea on race in the broader Judeo-Christian tradition, an idea that predated the founding of the church in 1830 but still influenced some Latter-day Saints at this time. The idea was that God had cursed Cain, one of the sons of Adam and Eve, with black skin after Cain had killed his brother, Abel, and that people of Black African descent were descended from Cain and inherited this curse. Unlike some Americans in his day, Brigham Young did believe that all men and women, regardless of their race, were children of God. And he told the legislators that at some point the priesthood restriction would end. And I’ll mention here that modern church leaders have since disavowed the curse of Cain as an explanation for the restriction. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/council-of-fifty-minutes-march-1844-january-1846-volume-1-10-march-1844-1-march-1845/1#historical-intro This is the exception as it is a transcript of an 1844 meeting and so would obviously not have the modern day disavowal in it. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-genesis/lesson-17-genesis-6-13-9-29?lang=eng Quote Our understanding of the events in Genesis 9:18–27 is limited. Although we know that Ham’s actions were deliberate and the consequences were severe, some have incorrectly used Noah’s cursing of his grandson Canaan recorded in Genesis 9:25–27 to justify slavery—particularly of people of black African descent. However, from the beginning of the Restoration, the Lord has taught, “It is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another” (D&C 101:79). Any theories suggested in the past that black skin is a curse or an indication of unworthiness in a premortal life; that mixed-race relationships are a sin; or that people of any race or ethnicity are inferior to anyone else are not true doctrine. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-material-2019/lesson-27-teacher-material-the-revelation-on-the-priesthood?lang=eng Quote Display the following statement, and invite a student to read it aloud: Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. (“Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics, topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org) Why do you think it is important to avoid speculating about previously given reasons for why the priesthood and temple restrictions existed? Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm 3
juliann Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 Wanna take bets that none of this is acknowledged as meaningful and the race baiters go straight to there is no special mention of the BOM curse? Yet all one would have to do in a SS class is read any of these because the BOM is not exempted, either. So for LDS, this settles it. This is considered authoritative and this supercedes anything said before it. So again, if you want to race bait, go find an alt-right group where they welcome it. -1
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 Btw, the second page of hits on “black skin” are all seminary and institute manuals and are also all disavowals. And that’s all the hits shown (it is post 2000 content), so every reference made by church manuals and on the website since 2000 to “black skin” save the historical publication has been a disavowal of the black skin as the mark of a curse belief. 1
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 To play doubter's advocate... I think they'd like something from the Lord about why, if untrue, were those ideas allowed to perpetuate for so long? 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 (edited) 13 minutes ago, juliann said: Wanna take bets that none of this is acknowledged as meaningful and the race baiters go straight to there is no special mention of the BOM curse? My standard is when it is no longer taught and believed by Latter-day Saints. It wouldn’t be hard for the prophet to give a talk at GC on this. Specifically and forcibly call out these scriptures. Call out and repudiate those who still cling to the old interpretation. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary. (This is certainly done on other topics, so I know those guys know how to do it). If the old doctrine”s repudiation was as cut and dry, as you seem to make it you wouldn’t see replies like this one (and her thread is littered with them). Call out exmos as long as you want, but maybe first clean your own house. Edited February 27, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 I'm still curious about what "guidance" was given when Church leaders were expressing their ideas on race years ago...
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said: To play doubter's advocate... I think they'd like something from the Lord about why, if untrue, were those ideas allowed to perpetuate for so long? Sure, I would too. But I would rather it not be guesses since we saw the devastation that caused…. 1
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 Just now, ZealouslyStriving said: I'm still curious about what "guidance" was given when Church leaders were expressing their ideas on race years ago... If you mean from God, you will likely have to wait until dead to ask them how they came to believe what they did.
Calm Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 (edited) 14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: My standard is when it is no longer taught and believed by Latter-day Saints. It wouldn’t be hard for the prophet to give a talk at GC on this. Specifically and forcibly call out these scriptures. Call out and repudiate those who still cling to the old interpretation. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary. (This is certainly done on other topics, so I know those guys know how to do it). At this point it is in every lesson on OD 2 starting in seminary and I think any lesson referring to the Curse of Cain (Genesis)and so is likely to reach a lot more than a conference talk and which means a lot of rinsing and repeating, but I too hope something specific is mentioned by the prophet as has been already taught by Elder Gerard in multiple settings (I think this is his chosen focus of his calling, I wonder if he was counseled to do this or it was personal inspiration). I so hope Elder Gerard becomes an apostle for so many reasons. Love this… https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/09/digital-only/we-are-family?lang=eng Quote Elder Gerard: As President Russell M. Nelson has said, we need to focus on doing everything we can together as followers of Jesus Christ to root out the evils of racism and prejudice throughout the world. As fellow Christians, what work is there yet to do? Reverend Brown: We developed this inhumane, dichotomous attitude and actions of them against us, us against them. We have not mastered that pronoun we. We are family. We came from one Creator. And as the scripture says, we are all made of one blood. This thing of racism in the world is a man-made, woman-made, nonsense expression. Regardless of how different we may be with external features, we are one as human beings. Every person is endowed, imbued with the sacred, and we should respect the worth and dignity of all persons. And all peoples means all. Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm 2
ZealouslyStriving Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 4 minutes ago, Calm said: If you mean from God, you will likely have to wait until dead to ask them how they came to believe what they did. I was specifically referring to a post by jkwilliams about repudiating "prophetic guidance" from the "last century or so" about race. I responded but...
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said: I'm still curious about what "guidance" was given when Church leaders were expressing their ideas on race years ago... Depends on the decade. Church leaders taught that race was God’s caste system. People on earth were sorted into races based on their pre-existence performance. With white Europeans on top And black Africans on bottom. Other races in between. They thought that races should not mix and marry. They taught that Native American skin color lightened as people accepted the gospel. Among other things.
juliann Posted February 27, 2024 Posted February 27, 2024 8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: My standard is when it is no longer taught and believed by Latter-day Saints. It wouldn’t be hard for the prophet to give a talk at GC on this. Specifically and forcibly call out these scriptures. Call out and repudiate those who still cling to the old interpretation. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary. (This is certainly done on other topics, so I know those guys know how to do it). If the old doctrine”s repudiation was as cut and dry, as you seem to make it you wouldn’t see replies like this one (and her thread is littered with them). Call out exmos as long as you want, but maybe first clean your own house. Of course. Find one racist online so you can discount many "LDS" in front of you. Do you hold the same standard for every other org? All it's random members must disavow racism individually before you will accept the orgs' position? Wow. How convenient. The truth is painfully clear. No matter what the church does or says, it won't be enough. Because church critics NEED the church to be racist. And sadly, also seem to desperately want that. BTW, a conference talk isn't necessarily "official." Yeah, there is a statement on that, too. Google it yourself. [You can call me a liar if you want but I'm not continuing to do the work for people who wave away everything that might discount their desire for the church to remain racist.] Statements the church puts out are the official ones. They are the final word. Which is what the above is. It is what was asked for and given. And dismissed out of hand. Again.
Recommended Posts