Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

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 

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.

Yup. The first page began with insults about "apologists." I continue to be mystified why critics come into a Mormon forum to insult and mock...and then rear back in surprise if a poster doesn't react with warmth. Try not insulting if you don't want a thread of insults. If you haven't noticed, the substantive posts have been completely ignored. If you guys wanted that you would be responding to that instead of "insults." But here you are. 

Your question, as I recall, was about a curse. How many times have we presented quotes from scholars about curses? We have the same misinterpretation in the Bible about the Curse of Cain. NOBODY who studies this stuff considers old racist interpretations to be valid. I honestly don't get why you guys have so much difficulty with using the same reasoning for the BOM for the same stuff in the Bible. Nor do I think I or anyone else should have to keep explaining this in a forum where scholarly stuff is regularly presented. So I do not understand your demand. The complaints were that the curse hadn't been disavowed, regardless of my saying several times it had been. I seriously think that the demand for proof after all this time is merely meant to annoy when it is common knowledge. But the quotes were presented. And of course, it's not good enough! Not good enough to even acknowledge let alone discuss.  If you want to discuss the BOM with Mormons you will have to deal with Biblical scholarship.  Condescending? Whatever. To me it looks like total unwillingness to put in the work required to understand ancient texts.

 

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Vaccines….

Yep, that was hilarious. In a morbid way.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, that was hilarious. In a morbid way.

It certainly was.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Hi, BD. It looks like the thread has moved on, but I wanted to explain myself.

You're fine. I can' keep up with the last couple pages anyways. 

 

Quote

I didn't include the next sentence because I didn't think it was relevant to the point I was making. The Come, Follow Me manual doesn't describe the mark as a metaphor; it describes it as "dark skin" (something Juliann said only "dumb Mormons who don't know about metaphor in ancient texts" believe).

Yes, it does say that "the nature and appearance of this mark [of dark skin] are not fully understood." It also says that this mark of dark skin—however it came about and whatever it actually looked like—"initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites" but later became "irrelevant." The manual goes on to affirm the current Church teaching that "dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing." None of this makes any sense to me if they're not actually talking about skin color.

Rhetorical question: How difficult is it for you to understand the phrase "dark skin" in our current context in our everyday lives? It's really not that difficult for me. No matter what, it's universally assumed that someone would have naturally darker skin when compared to another. It's not that hard to understand. But this small quote is saying basically that we don't fully understand it in this BoM context. That should immediately give a moment of pause. Major pause. 

Come follow me could have easily been paired with this quote from the gospel topics:

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.

This one is not simply focused on present assumptions for present people (which could be assumed in CFM), but also theories of the past as well. 

Quote

The Book of Moses says that the "the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among ["the sons of Adam"]" (Moses 7:22). Here we get the same (anachronistic) linking of cursing, "black[ness]," and segregation that we find in the Book of Mormon. I think it's problematic even if skin color isn't explicitly mentioned.

Not for me. It was when the only theory I had easy access to were the ones currently disavowed. But when letting those go and allowing space for a different lens, they became parts of a coherent motif that would use contrasting language to paint a picture of something dark, forbidden, tied to death and/or evil. What those were were usually described in detail in the chapter and preceding verses (common ones includes, secret oaths, death oaths/murderous hearts, rejection of God's covenants, cursed land and redacted promised lands, and behaviors that were considered inappropriate to the covenants/commandments of God. It would even include hierarchical forms of discrimination). These only become problematic when one insists it must be about race. 

Again, just for clarity, moses 7:22 is the second time black is used. The first is this:

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.

 This is really awkward to read as race. There is no context that would insist one immediately assume as much. As I mentioned the JST OT passage about Canaan describes a "veil of darkness shall cover him, an he shall be known among all men." What's preceded as distinguishable is the people dwelling in tents, being divided in the land, a land that is hot, barren and unfruitful (which are very similar themes/signs of divine disfavor in much of scripture, including the BoM). 7:22 then reads as a shorthand for something similar to 7:8.

Our fixations on race, our heritage in racism, bore this interpretation. It's not explicit in the text that they must have had a racial shift. We have to assume that's the right interpretation and then follow it, even when it's clearly disjointed. And even though recent interpretations from official sources are actively moving away from that interpretation. When that's gone, it's really not that problematic. It's a basic literary devise that ties into a really really really common symbolic use of dark and light/black and white to contrast good and evil/life and death...or in this case, something wrong with a people that makes them a people's version of taboo.

It also becomes relatable. As in there are messages there that actually do relate to our day. Which is kinda the whole point of the BoM....a book purportedly brought forth for us now. I often wonder when this comes up, how do these passages that you see hailing to race/skin color, tie in to our present? What message do you feel we need to receive from understanding that the Lamanites were supposedly cursed and marked with dark skin so they weren't desireable? (I should add, the curse and mark are not separated in the BoM as well. They're used interchangeably. So I refuse to do the common thing of trying to give some distance between the two to make it a slightly more palatable form of racism).

Personally, when it was the only working theory I was given...the answer was none. It was just a big nothing-burger that substituted as a stumbling block in a book I otherwise would find deep and personal answers in. When I let it go, I received far more. 

 

 

One last add on thought: its not the individual phrase that I focus on, it's the context in how that phrase is used in the text or recent context (in terms of CFM) that helps me define the phrase. Simply having the work black, blackness, dark, or darkness in a verse or chapter does not necessitate we're talking about a literal racial shift.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 27, 2024 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honestly, you can just get out of here. My wife grew up, thinking that her parents marriage was suspect. Because she is mixed race, she held a deep concern that she would not be able to find someone to marry in a righteous way. My children came home from church with doubts about their worth. They were born in 2003 for goodness sake. My mother complemented the lightest skin of my children because of his color. 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The only reason we’re here 45 years later is because the church leadership refuses to address the issue head on in a way that could upset the more conservative members of the church. It’s a decision that they make. Every time they choose to avoid the topic they make that decision. They have the ability to address it and they choose not to. Instead they issue carefully worded denials, it can be read either way. Slowly at first, then build steam, then publish anonymous essays on their website. Then slip stuff in the manuals then pretend it never existed in the first place . Avoid taking direct responsibility to stand up at the pulpit, and admit that they were wrong.  Call out their predecessors.

 

I know Calm brought up the covid vaccines, but I just wanted to second that example from my own experiences.  As someone who is mixed race, I have my own list of concerns when I was dating. I had more than one minority friend tell me their personal experiences around dating someone who's family turned out to have serious racial prejudices that made the relationship overall untenable. I had hints of it when it seem like I would get more attention from white guys when my hair was straight instead of curly. I'd secretly gage whether I'd want to be in a relationship based on the responses I'd get. I'd see it in how I would still get more attention as a mixed woman than some of my friends who were full black. It was my own mother who told me (believing I might add) in the curse of cain...an ham...and a long while later would start affirming the whole valiance in the pre-existance thing.

My family holds overt prejudices and racist ideas on all sides. H*ll, from time to time I find a prejudice I wasn't fully aware of based on stereotypes that never went challenged. I have absolutely no faith that a strong statement will do it. Racism is not that easy to uproot. It's a frustrating long drag of a work that's been generations in the making.

Personally from what I've seen, people don't shift with forceable language very often. Half the time the double down. Many will find a justification or means to maintain their position with barely a caveat in it. Nowadays, many will just mutter something about placating the woke crowd and dismiss it.

That said I do have hope in the future. Many of my peoples were easily convinced for any other interpretation of these passages. There isn't a deep sense of connection reflexive defense for the old interpretation, so it's sometimes pretty easily shifted. My daughter was born in 2019 and her world is notably different from mine. When I'm frustrated, I try to remember how long it took me to change traits about myself. Then I try to imagine that process repeat a million times over for an entire people. Zion is a long slog, not a short stint.

 

That said, I welcome any and all messages against past and present racism. I always will. I just assume it won't fix the problem.

 

With luv,

BD

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

So it’s okay to accuse people of gaslighting, but abusive to accuse them of racebaiting?

Juliann has begun her interactions in this thread with name-calling, and has continued it with spamming the thread with multiple name-calling replies.

Why is this being allowed???

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Dumb/stupid bad/mental gymnastics good?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Juliann has begun her interactions in this thread with name-calling, and has continued it with spamming the thread with multiple name-calling replies.

Why is this being allowed???

 

Have you reported her?  Surely by now you have realized mods don’t act unless there are reports and even then it can take a day or two.

Have you reported yourself for accusing believers of gaslighting?

Reported anyone who accused believers of mental gymnastics which implies deception (justifying the unjustifiable?)

Reported Teddy for his  vision of the afterlife?

The one sided focus on behavior relates to race while being dismissive of positive moves? 

Lot of personal stuff going on in the thread, but Juliann is the only one you noticed?  Or just care about?

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I reported myself for blaspheming against Orson Scott Card.

[Calm]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I reported myself for blaspheming against Orson Scott Card.

Well done

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Have you reported her?  Surely by now you have realized mods don’t act unless there are reports and even then it can take a day or two.

Have you reported yourself for accusing believers of gaslighting?

Reported anyone who accused believers of mental gymnastics which implies deception (justifying the unjustifiable?)

Reported Teddy for his  vision of the afterlife?

The one sided focus on behavior relates to race while being dismissive of positive moves? 

Lot of personal stuff going on in the thread, but Juliann is the only one you noticed?  Or just care about?

Name-calling is against the board rules. 

What is wrong with me sharing my overall impression of these types of apologetics? That's my genuine feeling and I elaborated on it and explored it further. I did not engage in name-calling or attack anyone personally.

Juliann's behaviour has imo disrupted the thread and remarkably so. I don't understand why she isn't auto banned from race in the BOM posts, this is not the first time she's done this.

Mormonism unfortunately is a double edged sword: it can be a dear comfort and it can be a great hurt and respectively so for people who love each other very much. I value this board because I discuss both sides of it without bothering people who don't want to. But I don't want to do that in an abusive environment.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Instead of being "offenders for a word", let's all agree to try better in following this prophetic guidance:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/47nelson?lang=eng

[MustardSeed]

52 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Instead of being "offenders for a word", let's all agree to try better in following this prophetic guidance:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/47nelson?lang=eng

this advice worked great for about two days following the speech. I think many of us are drawn back here because of the excitement that conflict causes. there’s nothing quite as exhilarating as that whole “gotcha “vibe that feeds the ego like nothing else. 
Welcome to the board by the way, your post is a healthy reminder. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

I know Calm brought up the covid vaccines,

So why even try, right? Again there is not one attributable statement to a prophet or apostle that specifically repudiates this idea as well as those that taught it.  They seem a bit too busy talking about lax disciples, lazy learners, and counterfeit families.  Make excuses for them all you want I see nothing but cowardice. 

 

[california boy]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

Yup. The first page began with insults about "apologists." I continue to be mystified why critics come into a Mormon forum to insult and mock...and then rear back in surprise if a poster doesn't react with warmth. Try not insulting if you don't want a thread of insults. If you haven't noticed, the substantive posts have been completely ignored. If you guys wanted that you would be responding to that instead of "insults." But here you are. 

Maybe your first problem is you think those of us that are former Mormons are only here to insult and mock, rather than to try and find answers.  Like the questions that I asked.  Like the questions that I asked twice and were ignored.  Like the response you give above.  None of which relates to the questions I have asked.  So instead of answering the question, you write your own narrative of what you think this is about and then attack the very false statement that I didn't say.  You are more interested in attacking than engaging.  Fine.  I will keep that in mind.  

10 hours ago, juliann said:

Your question, as I recall, was about a curse. How many times have we presented quotes from scholars about curses? We have the same misinterpretation in the Bible about the Curse of Cain. NOBODY who studies this stuff considers old racist interpretations to be valid. I honestly don't get why you guys have so much difficulty with using the same reasoning for the BOM for the same stuff in the Bible.

My question had nothing to do with Biblical scholarship.  This thread is not about Biblical scholarship.  Yet you have decided to make it about that.  Not to answer any questions that I have asked about.

10 hours ago, juliann said:

Nor do I think I or anyone else should have to keep explaining this in a forum where scholarly stuff is regularly presented. So I do not understand your demand.

Perhaps it would have been better to ask for clarification of what I asked rather than make up a statement that I didn't make and then attack that false statement.

10 hours ago, juliann said:

The complaints were that the curse hadn't been disavowed, regardless of my saying several times it had been. I seriously think that the demand for proof after all this time is merely meant to annoy when it is common knowledge. But the quotes were presented. And of course, it's not good enough! Not good enough to even acknowledge let alone discuss.  If you want to discuss the BOM with Mormons you will have to deal with Biblical scholarship.  Condescending? Whatever. To me it looks like total unwillingness to put in the work required to understand ancient texts.

Do you even remember what I actually wrote back on page 17?  This is what I wrote.  I added the bold.  Maybe you won't ignore that part now.  I remain hopeful anyway.

Quote

 

Wait.  Are you trying to tell me the reason why you are accusing me of race baiting is because I acknowledged that past leaders taught a totally different belief on what was meant in the BoM about the curse placed upon them by God????  That is the reason I am race baiting?  Seriously?  And to be clear, I never ever said that past racist practices by the Church have not been disavowed.  They have.  

 

My question was never about past teachings about the black curse.  It was about current official Church understanding of Book of Mormon scripture.  Not current official understanding of Biblical scripture.  You know, like what this thread is suppose to be about before you started telling everyone they were race baiting and ignoring the actual questions.

My interaction with you has been very unpleasant.  It is apparent you are not interested in answering what I actually am asking.  I have repeated the question enough times to come to the conclusion that clarifying Church teachings is not why you are posting.  Since insulting seems to be your main goal, I am bowing out.  Continue to insult and misrepresent me if you wish.  I will no longer respond.  

[MustardSeed]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Nvmd 

[Rain]

Ugh. Mixing various posts up so I'm erasing this one.

Edited February 27, 2024 by Rain

[BlueDreams]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So why even try, right? Again there is not one attributable statement to a prophet or apostle that specifically repudiates this idea as well as those that taught it.  They seem a bit too busy talking about lax disciples, lazy learners, and counterfeit families.  Make excuses for them all you want I see nothing but cowardice. 

Seeking, these conversations and awkward experiences have been my life since I was 5 (its the first time I remember race and ethnicity being imposed on me). It was my birthright in many ways when I entered a white rural family that still used the term negro to describe black people in the late 80's in a country where systemic racism is still not fully acknowledged. If I didn't try and accept slow hauls and limits to growth, I would have had to cut off relationships both in and out of the church years ago. (I still have but it's a calculus rather than a simple math equation). I would have been a lot more angry and bitter than I currently am. In short, I would have burned out. And that's not hyopthetical....I've seen others do so. I've also learned to be very patient with the process. I've had more than one experience of sitting in a class of mostly white latter-day saints going through stages of figuring out difficult topics around race (I assume i would have had the same experience in a TX class if I'd gone to college there, considering the attitudes I saw in my suburban texas community as a teenager were far from enlightened). It would often take the entirety of a semester for people who were generally millennials at a point where people are the most mentally flexible at a time where we were nearly as reactively polarized to see a world they at best only superficially engaged with. That's a semester of mandatory readings, uncomfortable exposures, and assignments that included personal introspection to move the needle to at least recognizing the fingerprints of systemic racism and general prejudice and the effect it has on others. So I've come to accept that change most often happens in degrees before it can change at large...which then must be bolstered by continued changes by degree yet again.

I don't immediately assume cowardice in most people, particularly those in a situation I'll never have to balance. It's usually not a major emotional pull for many people. It's more often an attribute we impose on others to self-validate our hurts. And the label doesn't do much of anything beyond that self-validation in my experience. Well, that and shut down conversation. And confrontation isn't the name of the game in the church most the time...nor should it be. They're slowly trying to encourage a zion community and continuing restoration withing balance to how ready the people around them are ready to take in more. They're also limited by the extent their own views and perspectives can expand to see the extent of a problem. And they're old. I don't mean that as an ageist, I mean that more as an indication of what at least the Americans were likely to have lived in a circumstance where race played at best a periphery role most of their lives that they never had to directly engage with for very long. They're trying. They're talking explicitly about the antithetical nature of racism to the gospel. Those statements are getting stronger and more consistent. Calm mentioned the lesson shifts for the youth. They also have other concerns that I want them to focus on when it comes to a variety of other topics and concerns related to the gospel. 

But the real work IMHO is on the individual/community level. Will the teacher or facilitator talk about this when it's that lesson even if it's a topic people get squeamish about? Will the people apply and recognize the application in themselves even though many are raised in a culture that assume racism is another person's problem? Will those close to them have meaningful discussions about how what they just said is prejudiced or racist and not aligned with god and the church? If that doesn't happen, they could shout it from the roof top and basically nothing would change. Any more than getting a vaccine publicly stopped vaccine skepticism. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not on our own, I agree.  But we aren't left on our own, and eventually we won't be looking through a glass darkly.  Thank goodness.

Even with companionship, we still have to interpret everything through our mortal perspectives and filters.  There is no way around it.  As you note, we are still looking through a glass darkly.  Eventually, we may be privy to see as God sees and know as God knows in a holistic and absolute sense, but until then, there is no way around relativism.  Morality will never be an objective thing in mortality that we can get outside of our limited perspective, and all assess in an unbiased way.  That is demonstrably the case, even in our church.  Even with our own prophets, we see how morality evolves and changes with differing perspectives.  If morality is unmistakenly knowable in an absolute sense, then we wouldn't expect to see change in perspectives with morality in relation to racism and other obvious areas of change in our prophets.  What was considered moral, even doctrinal, for Brigham Young and the early saints is not considered moral for Pres. Nelson and most saints today, although there are still some who espouse Brigham's morals today.  That demonstrates relativity - Brigham's truth was not the same as Nelson's truth, which may or may not align with THE TRUTH.  Relativism is inescapable until perfection and an absolute perspective is achieved.           

Edited February 27, 2024 by pogi

[bluebell]

20 hours 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 President 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.

This is probably the crux of the issue between us.  My experience of the church is not the same as yours (though why I should assume that your experience is the real church and mine and calm and blue dreams, etc. experience of the church is a false one, I don't know).

But I do agree that people from earlier eras would not recognize the church that exists today.  We would not recognize the church that existed in their day either.  Some, with very rigid ideas about what the church is and how it must be, find that to be a flaw but i see it as a fulfillment of AoF 9.

 

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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)

This is how I see it as well.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

why she isn't auto banned from race in the BOM

I don’t think that is a function this board has.  How would that be done?

And while you may see your comments as okay because you are saying overall impressions, they apply to those of us who use them or who are part of the Church when you or others label that as abusive or a cult and I don’t see that as any less offensive than specific labels.  

But what is relevant in banning is what the mods care about, so report or don’t complain when someone hasn’t been banned. And be patient because the mods have a life and don’t spend most of it on the board as would be required for a quick response. Thankfully most of the time they aren’t needed, so I get why they have likely gotten into a habit of checking once daily or less when life gets busy for them. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, juliann said:

Not that I'm keeping track or anything, but I've put up at least 3 references. Not ONE has even been addressed let alone elicited any engagement. That is why this is nothing but racebaiting. There is no interest in a discussion, certainly no interest in discovery. And worst of all, every interest in keep racism alive and well. 

Can't wait to see racebaiters school Marvin Perkins, who is Black. Will the white race baiters call him a gaslighter to avoid engagement? 

I plan on coming back to it and I hope we can have a civil exchange.  Just been tied up work wise. 

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is probably the crux of the issue between us.  My experience of the church is not the same as yours (though why I should assume that your experience is the real church and mine and calm and blue dreams, etc. experience of the church is a false one, I don't know).

What would be really interesting is if the church reverted back to its 1960-1990's approach.  I wonder how someone like yourself might react.  I really don't have an issue with changes.  Even if the skin issue is now being taught to mean something else.  In fact I applaud that. I just would love to have LDS authorities say so and be specific. It does seem like a bucket of cold water when an apologist tries to tell those of use who were taught that the skin of darkness meant just that, that it does not anymore.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So why even try, right? Again there is not one attributable statement to a prophet or apostle that specifically repudiates this idea as well as those that taught it.  They seem a bit too busy talking about lax disciples, lazy learners, and counterfeit families.  Make excuses for them all you want I see nothing but cowardice. 

 

I was not making excuses, just pointing out that while there will be somethings that can get good responses from members (it seems over all members are going along without much controversy with the use the correct name of the Church request), other causes are more of an uphill battle with many members getting defensive and there being backlash and greater resistance instead of conversion and it may be useful to focus on different ways to change hearts and minds, like getting members involved in activities that have them work with people they have messed up ideas about so they can see the reality doesn’t match their beliefs, such as has been done through the Just Serve options. 

But I also hope they go the route you want them to by talking scripture interpretation and what interpretations don’t actually accord with our beliefs. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Even with companionship, we still have to interpret everything through our mortal perspectives and filters.  There is no way around it.  As you note, we are still looking through a glass darkly.  Eventually, we may be privy to see as God sees and know as God knows in a holistic and absolute sense, but until then, there is no way around relativism.  Morality will never be an objective thing in mortality that we can get outside of our limited perspective, and all assess in an unbiased way.  That is demonstrably the case, even in our church.  Even with our own prophets, we see how morality evolves and changes with differing perspectives.  If morality is unmistakenly knowable in an absolute sense, then we wouldn't expect to see change in perspectives with morality in relation to racism and other obvious areas of change in our prophets.  What was considered moral, even doctrinal, for Brigham Young and the early saints is not considered moral for Pres. Nelson and most saints today, although there are still some who espouse Brigham's morals today.  That demonstrates relativity - Brigham's truth was not the same as Nelson's truth, which may or may not align with THE TRUTH.  Relativism is inescapable until perfection and an absolute perspective is achieved.           

Yes, like I said I agree.  But it's still an interpretation of something that actually exists.  If something is immoral, it is immoral whether anyone believes it is or not.  The idea that we chose what is moral or immoral doesn't work for me. 

We can choose how we feel about it, but that doesn't affect the actual nature of the thing.  It exists outside of our feelings.