Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I liked your comment because now you have enough posts, yay!

Woohoo 🤚🎉

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How about... I appreciate darker skin tones?

Maybe best to just appreciate them in your head and not out loud.   

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How about... I appreciate darker skin tones?

Just stop. Please. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The problem is that it doesn’t matter. Here is a talk from Elder Oaks on racism. 
 

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

Note this at the bottom:

“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,32cannot 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

He’s excused all divine and prophetic actions from scrutiny. All one has to do is decide the priesthood ban, racist curses etc are divine and then bam! Not racist. 
 

Until they are specifically called out by name by those in authority, these things will persist in your church. 

Let's be honest... Things will persist no matter what they do- we are a church of millions of flawed people.

And for those opposed to the Church nothing will ever be good enough.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

Let's be honest... Things will persist no matter what they do- we are a church of millions of flawed people.

And for those opposed to the Church nothing will ever be good enough.

Honestly, that’s a horrible attitude to go through life with. Why do church leaders get up and say anything in general conference? People are just gonna do what they’re gonna do right? Ridiculous. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe best to just appreciate them in your head and not out loud.   

To be clear there was nothing sexual in my comment.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honestly, that’s a horrible attitude to go through life with. Why do church leaders get up and say anything in general conference? People are just gonna do what they’re gonna do right? Ridiculous. 

For those with hearts to listen and obey

They can't make anyone do anything.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To be clear there was nothing sexual in my comment.

Unfortunately there is too much baggage for women attached to comments like that, especially for minority women, so even if you didn’t make any such connection, it gets made in the woman’s thought for most women in my experience. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[juliann]

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just ones that I’m intimately familiar with. Ones where I know the thoughts and feelings of both family members, close, friends relatives, etc. Nearly all of them reject your interpretation. This isn’t a hard problem to fix. 

Laws haven't fixed it for the country. Why do you think a prophet's unenforceable words would? This is going to stop through social pressure. That is how it always works.  But if you aren't willing to stand up when you hear scuzzy stuff it will be considered acceptable and it will continue. Some people need to be publicly embarrassed. We have enough tools from leaders to stand our ground. I used to carry quotes to church but I haven't heard anything for so long I no longer do. 

And let me guess, you didn't bother to read the link to this month's talk that threatened temple worthiness, did you. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honestly, that’s a horrible attitude to go through life with. Why do church leaders get up and say anything in general conference? People are just gonna do what they’re gonna do right? Ridiculous. 

And why are you so angry... Lighten up 🥳

[Calm]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And why are you so angry... Lighten up 🥳

When your kids suffer unnecessarily, it tends to make you angry.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Now.... to draw fire away from others - let me give my opinion:

I believe the skin color of the Lamanites was changed, not through some strange phenomenon but by them mingling with an existing population. How else do you explain their numbers being over twice that of the Nephites even after the Nephites merged with the Mulekites?

Now, do I believe this was a curse? No. But the Lord used it to keep the Nephites from desiring marriage with them.

The musings of early Utah leaders? I chalk it up to being a little too loose with their personal thoughts from the pulpit. I refuse to hold them to a standard of perfection I can't hope for myself

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

Hi, I know you've received and answer or two.  Gonna throw in my own. There's a couple problems with this. 

1.) It's still an assumption with only the numbers to really back is up and our modern assumptions of what makes someone most distinguishable.

2.) Pragmatically both groups would have had to marry out to genetically thrive. The pool was just too small. 

 

--- the following is my assumptions and interpretations ---

What I assume is more likely, is that the lamanites married out and had more local populations in their communities more than the nephites could...not that the nephites weren't doing the same. The Lamanites' standard and desire to maintain their og traditions were likely far more flexible than the nephite population, especially at first. Since the nephites were more strident and less flexible about shifting tradition, they would have probably expected more conversion in order to marry and maybe even expectations on what it looked like to live or participate in their communities. 

I remember while reading 2 Nephi that in some ways the book reads as guidelines for what would be the boundaries of their community. With the verses in 2 ne 26 making it clear that anyone was welcome by God into the fold...as long as they were converted to God. Here's a portion: 

Quote

For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness. 24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. 25 Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price. 26 Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. 27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance. 28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.

(Not another verse that talks about darkness in terms of beliefs not skin tone)

Some of this is tied to a context of nephi's prophecies for the distant future...but it would be weird for him to declare this and then assume something otherwise for his own people. This was their standard for intermarrying to avoid a larger concern for them: drifting away from their traditions/God. That would be a main focus particularly for nephi who starts his record talking about the wickedness taking over in Jerusalem and the deep need for the brass plates. It would come up again well later when they meet a population that has lost the full understanding of their old traditions. And Nephi would also highlight stories of his errant brothers that showed how quickly they'd drift towards doubt, unbelief, darkness, and a willingness to loosen on their traditions. 

So though this an assumption, I think it's more congruent with several themes in the early texts especially. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unfortunately there is too much baggage for women attached to comments like that, especially for minority women, so even if you didn’t make any such connection, it gets made in the woman’s thought for most women in my experience. 

I've been out of circulation for a while... To me it's just an innocent observation about taste.

I will refrain in the future.

🤐 Fwiends?

[Calm]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

I've been out of circulation for a while... To me it's just an innocent observation about taste.

I will refrain in the future.

🤐 Fwiends?

Of course.  I wouldn’t have advised you to change your approach otherwise.   

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Laws haven't fixed it for the country. Why do you think a prophet's unenforceable words would?
 

Because these people support the prophet as God’s mouth piece?

1 minute ago, juliann said:

This is going to stop through social pressure. That is how it always works.  But if you aren't willing to stand up when you hear scuzzy stuff it will be considered acceptable and it will continue. Some people need to be publicly embarrassed. We have enough tools from leaders to stand our ground. I used to carry quotes to church but I haven't heard anything for so long I no longer do. 
 

Would it help your case in this thread and at church to have direct  unequivocal endorsement from the current prophet or hurt it?

1 minute ago, juliann said:

And let me guess, you didn't bother to read the link to this month's talk that threatened temple worthiness, did you. 

🙄 Do you always communicate assuming bad faith from those on the other side? And yes I skimmed it. 
 

As I posted above people that endorse skin color as a mark of God’s curse don’t view that idea as racist. Oak’s specifically exempts prophetic and divine actions as racist. By definition. 
 

It’s like the church when they preach love towards LGBTQ people. They say love them which is great. Until you read the next paragraph when they say “love” means I’m not willing to be seen with you in public. 
 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because these people support the prophet as God’s mouth piece?

Would it help your case in this thread and at church to have direct  unequivocal endorsement from the current prophet or hurt it?

🙄 Do you always communicate assuming bad faith from those on the other side? And yes I skimmed it. 
 

As I posted above people that endorse skin color as a mark of God’s curse don’t view that idea as racist. Oak’s specifically exempts prophetic and divine actions as racist. By definition. 
 

It’s like the church when they preach love towards LGBTQ people. They say love them which is great. Until you read the next paragraph when they say “love” means I’m not willing to be seen with you in public. 
 

 

If that is true why aren't they following his counsel now?

Edited February 27, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because these people support the prophet as God’s mouth piece?

Vaccines….

[juliann]

 

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

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

Note this at the bottom:

“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,32cannot 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

He’s excused all divine and prophetic actions from scrutiny. All one has to do is decide the priesthood ban, racist curses etc are divine and then bam! Not racist. 
 

Until they are specifically called out by name by those in authority, these things will persist in your church. 

I suppose you didn't purposefully leave out the context that shows he was specifically talking about the misuse of the BIBLE, right? 

Quote

 "As believers relying on scriptural history, we can be troubled and misled by Bible-recorded scriptural directions or traditions that may be viewed as racist or discriminatory by modern definition." (above quote then follows) 

Come on, do better. This does not erase the copious admonitions against racism that preceded it. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by juliann

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Vaccines….

I saw that, haha!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Come on, do better. This does not erase the copious admonitions against racism that preceded it. 

I’m just pointing out why racist views persist in your church. Why that twitter thread was shocking to exmos not paying attention as well as chapel Mormons that found it equally lacking. 
 

It seems odd to me that the leaders of your organization can’t seem to address this issue directly. it seems odder to me that you don’t want them to. I get we exmos make easy targets for your indignation, but maybe if you addressed your own house, tidied it up a bit, there would be fewer of us around. 

I’m out. Good luck!

[california boy]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

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?

 

1 hour 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. 

 

Juliann, the problem I have with you is it seems you only read half of what people post.  As a result you end up calling people names that don't really apply to them.   I do appreciate your apology.  And yes, you are attacking people claiming that the Church has moved on.  So I asked this simple question 

Quote

 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.

Your reference didn't really answer my question did it.  But you seem that because the Church has disavowed black skin is a curse, that all the sudden explains what the verses in the BoM are about???  Your glib answer is not an explanation of what the Church believes those verses in the BoM are referring to.  I did look on LDS.org and I see no explanation of what those verses mean.  Yet you are offended when I ask what the Church's explanation of those verses are.  You chastised me and yet are not able to explain what the Church now teaches those verses mean.  Do you see how your insulting barbs are really unwarranted .  Yes you did find something, but not answers to the questions I actually asked about.  

I don't mind you stating that you don't want to answer the question, but I do mind your condescending attitude you have as if it is my fault that it appears the Church does not have an explanation of those verses.  And this is where I loose patience with you and your flippant answers.  You are quick to insult but slow to engage in attempting to answer the actual questions.

I haven't had much interaction with you over the years.  But honestly, this has not been a particularly enjoyable experience.  It mostly has been a string of insults.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m just pointing out why racist views persist in your church. Why that twitter thread was shocking to exmos not paying attention as well as chapel Mormons that found it equally lacking. 
 

It seems odd to me that the leaders of your organization can’t seem to address this issue directly. it seems odder to me that you don’t want them to. I get we exmos make easy targets for your indignation, but maybe if you addressed your own house, tidied it up a bit, there would be fewer of us around. 

I’m out. Good luck!

I highly doubt it. 😁

Have a nice night.

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because these people support the prophet as God’s mouth piece?

Would it help your case in this thread and at church to have direct  unequivocal endorsement from the current prophet or hurt it?

🙄 Do you always communicate assuming bad faith from those on the other side? And yes I skimmed it. 
 

As I posted above people that endorse skin color as a mark of God’s curse don’t view that idea as racist. Oak’s specifically exempts prophetic and divine actions as racist. By definition. 
 

It’s like the church when they preach love towards LGBTQ people. They say love them which is great. Until you read the next paragraph when they say “love” means I’m not willing to be seen with you in public. 
 

 

I think there will be more coming given the recent address threatening temple worthiness.

Do you know any racist who thinks they are racist? What difference does that make about the reality? And you omitted Oaks' context. He was talking about Bible verses. Clearly. Although I do think we will get less from Pres. Oaks but be more accurate in your accusations please. 

The church is doing much better with racism than LGBTQ. That is where I have some strong disagreements and concerns.  But this thread is about racism. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

BTW I like dark-skinned girls.

Fetishizing physical features doesn’t put you beyond racism anymore than being married guarantees someone is not sexist.

Pornhub just put out their porn stats for 2023 and searches for transgender content are highest amongst boomer-aged people, the same people most likely to oppose them politically. You can be attracted to someone and still hate them.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fetishizing physical features doesn’t put you beyond racism anymore than being married guarantees someone is not sexist.

Pornhub just put out their porn stats for 2023 and searches for transgender content are highest amongst boomer-aged people, the same people most likely to oppose them politically. You can be attracted to someone and still hate them.

This has been addressed. Thank you.