Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

And sincerely, I wonder how that is going for you and others.  Are you well received in your ward when you point this out?

I know I mentioned this a while back on the thread, but it likely got buried. I made a comment when our ex-bishop who was teaching brought it up at the tail end of class (great timing on his part ps. It guaranteed we went over 7 minutes 😅). I go to a Spanish ward, so controversial topics tend to lead to very lively discussions from multiple ward members until we run out of time. This was no exception. There was a range a reactions, a couple moments of distress, so I raised my hand and decided to try my hardest to explain myself in Spanish (it's not my native tongue, so I can stumble when I'm using a few unfamiliar words). 

I mentioned that I wrote a study paper about it in college and that it made better sense to look at it as symbolic language that used different words to represent rebellion from the gospel. People were nodding heads. I also mentioned that we do not know what was meant by this phrase for them. Then I made a smaller joke that obviously I don't change color, minus during the summer and winter. People laughed. The tempo in the room changed and the teacher immediately decided to land on calling someone for prayer to end class. 

I've been the lone voice to push back on other rhetoric. I've learned how to do it in a way that doesn't immediately feel confrontational, even though I've usually completely underminded their point. And like what others experienced, what usually happens is that it gives permission for others to speak and say otherwise. 

The one time I regretted not doing it was during a train wreck of a law or chastity lesson when a YSA bishop went to town on terrible analogies and refused to let anyone leave for the worst sex talk I've ever witnessed. I made up for it by getting the next bishop (the other was released before I could meet with him) to allow me to do a presentation for the ward on sex.

Usually in the wards I've been in, my opinion has been respected, I'm usually thanked for it after class by someone who was relieved to have someone speak up, and my abilities (usually around my therapy background) have been actively sought out to help the ward in different ways. I've unofficially counseled or collaborated with a number of my bishops, particularly when I was a YSA to inform them on sex issues they might face with their ward members and on presentations. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 28, 2024 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2024 at 4:26 PM, juliann said:

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].

 

 

Ok let's see if we can be a bit more polite.  I asked for a CFR for Bible verses that specifically used the same language language as the BoM when it comes to skin color. Passages that say a people had a skin of blackness come upon them because of their iniquity and thus being curses. Language that signifies that the skin of blackness was placed on those cursed so that those not cursed would find the those cursed loathsome.  Respectfully I do not see at all how the Bible vs are similar. I am well aware that scripture uses light and dark, black and white as signifying good and evil.  But are there passages in the Bible like the BoM ones? I don't think so. In addition we have the BoA that emphasis a curse with skin color as well.  I think this from Wikipedia summarizes the topic well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color#:~:text=In his revisions of the,of the previously cursed Cain.

Quote

 

Mormon teachings on skin color have evolved throughout the history of the Latter Day Saint movement, and have been the subject of controversy and criticism. Historically, in Mormonism's largest denomination the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), leaders beginning with founder Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of a curse from God.^[1] After his death in 1844 other leaders taught it was also a punishment for premortal unrighteousness. However, since 2013 the church has officially disavowed these beliefs and now teaches that all people are equal in God's sight, regardless of skin color.

The LDS Church's earlier teachings and policies based on skin color were rooted in its canonized scriptures the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. In the Book of Mormon the Nephites, a group of ancient Americans who were descended from Israelites, were "white and exceedingly fair and delightsome". The Lamanites, on the other hand, were described as having "a skin of blackness" and were said to have been cursed with this condition as a punishment for their wickedness and rebellion against God. In his revisions of the King James Bible, and production of the Book of Abraham Smith traced Black skin to the Biblical curses placed on Cain and Ham, and linked the two by positioning Ham's Canaanite cursed posterity as matrilinear descendants of the previously cursed Cain.^[2] These discriminatory beliefs around skin color were reinforced by church leaders in the 19th and early 20th centuries, who taught that dark skin was a sign of inferiority and that those with dark skin were not as righteous as those with light skin. This belief was also used to justify LDS social segregation and other skin-color-based policies within the church, such as denying Black women and men access to ordinances in the temple necessary for exaltation in the highest tier of heaven. The temple and priesthood restrictions were removed in 1978, with the top leaders stating that all priesthood ordination would be practiced "without regard for race or color."

Since then, the LDS church has disavowed its earlier teachings on skin color and has worked to promote racial equality and inclusion. In a 2013 statement, the church said, "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 ... or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." Several other Mormon denominations, however continue to teach into the present day that skin color is related to curses or personal righteousness.

 

So, I am still not convinced that this new approach to the skin color issue is really substantive based on the words of the passages and on what LDS leaders have taught for most of the history of the church. If you and others want to reinterpret them and claim this is what they meant all along more power to you. It would be nice if the LDS leadership would back that up by taking the same position and stating the prior leaders were wrong in their understanding.  Though that creates other problems.

Additionally I take exception with you claiming myself and other here are race baiting. We simply are saying look, this is what the simple reading of the passages say.  This is what LDS leaders said the passages mean for over 150 years.  And now there is a switch and all of us who say hey wait a minute, well we are wrong and race baiters? Sorry but I am not buying into that.  

In addition, it seems to me that these passages and the issue of dark vs white skin are another item that demonstrates the BoM is not ancient but a 19th century production since the concept of skin color seems to be a popular myth in the early 1800s and Joseph and crew were quite familiar with it.

To close, I really am happy that there seems to be a movement away from the idea that the passages talk about skin color.  But I don't see that coming form official sources yet.  Maybe if they are there someone can provide them.

[Nofear]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But are there passages in the Bible like the BoM ones? I don't think so.

I'm not going to engage this thread (since I find it mostly silly), but I am a little perplexed by your assertion that the Book of Mormon must be interpreted as racist*. What is abundantly clear historically is that Protestants and some Catholics very much used the Bible to justify their advocacy of slavery or other racist ideas. Many of the early Latter-day Saints carried that over with them and similarly used the Book of Mormon to justify their racist ideas. Just as the Biblical interpretations have been discarded, so too do we reject the justifications for racism that some used the Book of Mormon for.

Put it another way, I don't think the Book of Mormon took a non-racist individual and made them racist because it's so clearly taught to be so in the Book of Mormon. Instead, somebody who was already racist found text to justify their attitudes. It would be shocking to me if they did not do so. It's human nature.


* I'm still open to the idea that the Nephites, especially early on, may well have been racist (or more accurately, viewing their Jerusalem heritage as superior to extant cultural heritages of the local population and so more culturalist that racist).

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:16 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Judging people 200 years ago by today's sensitivities is short-sighted (myopic). BY and others weren't any more racist than your average citizen of European descent. And the Wards were always integrated - which is far better than nominal Christianity at the time. The Restoration is a process understanding takes time, even in the Lord's Church. He didn't reveal everything at once, but "line upon line..." In the meantime good men do the best they can trying to listen for the Spirit's direction. Do they always get it right? No. Sometimes the ark gets wobbly, we just have to continue choosing faith.

If this is the case and the priesthood ban, as well as yhow LDS leaders taught about the BoM passages under scrutiny here, were simply a result of the Prophets,Seer and revelators culture one wonders why God would not intervene if they were teaching false racism.  There were plenty of abolitionists in the 19th century. Not everyone was racist.  Also the Church and its leaders were pretty adamant in rolling out and promoting polygamy, which was an abhorrent practice to the culture of the day.  If LDS leaders just do things based on the culture of the day it seems like polygamy never would have been rolled out. So allegedly, God was concerned enough to intervene and send an angel with flaming  sword to threaten JS if he did not roll out polygamy, but at the same time God allowed racism to be integrate into the doctrine of The Only True and Living Church?  Do you see the problem here? 

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2024 at 6:50 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

What is your understanding of the word "prophet"?

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

It is the same understanding the the LDS leaders teach about the word.

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm not going to engage this thread (since I find it mostly silly), but I am a little perplexed by your assertion that the Book of Mormon must be interpreted as racist*.

If that is what you think then you are missing my point entirely.  The main issue is what did the writers think?  What did the LDS leaders think about the passages from their keystone text? And is it an honest approach to argue that they were simply products of their time, they got it wrong and have fixed it (the fix it part is debatable).

[Kevin Christensen]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If this is the case and the priesthood ban, as well as yhow LDS leaders taught about the BoM passages under scrutiny here, were simply a result of the Prophets,Seer and revelators culture one wonders why God would not intervene if they were teaching false racism.  There were plenty of abolitionists in the 19th century. Not everyone was racist.  Also the Church and its leaders were pretty adamant in rolling out and promoting polygamy, which was an abhorrent practice to the culture of the day.  If LDS leaders just do things based on the culture of the day it seems like polygamy never would have been rolled out. So allegedly, God was concerned enough to intervene and send an angel with flaming  sword to threaten JS if he did not roll out polygamy, but at the same time God allowed racism to be integrate into the doctrine of The Only True and Living Church?  Do you see the problem here? 

Expectations are important.  And with respect to expectations, "What should I expect?" turns out to be a very different question that "What do I expect?" and it's frequent companion "What do I want?"

D&C 1 formally states what I should expect:   

Quote

Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, ...

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

That expectation is, I submit, consistent with the evidence of the Bible and all of human history.  The notion that God would not permit or allow individuals or societies to do or think anything that might not full embody his will is not the lesson I get from, say, the story of Samuel and Saul and Israel's desire for a King, or of Samuel's sons, or of David, or Solomon, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, or the crucifixion of Jesus, or Peter's denial, or the loss of 116 pages of translation, or Mountain Meadows, or John C. Bennet, or ... anything really.  M. Scott Peck famously said that "Sanity is commitment to reality at all costs."  And the cost of discovering reality always turns out to be what Jesus calls the sacrifice of a broken heart, and a contrite spirit.  Asking "What should I expect?" involves being self-critical, not just judgmental relative to what I think is so, and what I want to be so.

Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  Getting that knowledge is a tall order.  We see partially, and through a glass darkly.  We can improve, but that requires repentance, as an ongoing eternal process.  Not stasis on grounds that if we have the Truth, then nothing can or should change.

Of the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord am well pleased,"... the passage goes on to deliberately and realistically describe the Lord

Quote

speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;

35 For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.

Membership bestows opportunity and accountability.  Not exclusive virtue and perfect leaders and an ideal history free of human folly.  Asking whether the LDS Church leaders have, at times demonstrated important inspiration, is a very different question than asking whether they have behaved always like God's own sock puppets, on the assumption that we are currently capable of evaluating that case in light of current personal knowledge.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:26 PM, Stargazer said:

Without being able to provide "proof" of God's existence, I know He exists and the LDS church is His Son's church on earth. I'd be heartbroken if I lost that conviction, because it has given me a great deal of comfort during life's vicissitudes, and I'm sorry that you have lost it. I suppose there might be some truth in an insinuation that I only hold to it because I'm afraid to let it go. But it's not desperation; I am quite comfortable with the evidences I have received.

What does I know mean in the context above? Without being able to prove it you know it?  The statement seems contradictory.  I get that you have really strong beliefs and faith and think you have had some sort of spiritual experience that confirms your faith.  But know?

And sure, as I lost my testimony and faith in Mormonism it was heartbreaking for me.  The church and its its doctrine were the center of my life for 52 years and even longer since my wife continued for a time as a faithful member. It was not till she decided that the church is not what it claims that I stopped participating.  That was about 5 years ago.  If I could put the genie back in the bottle I would. I have tried a variety of ways and none have worked to date. 

[pogi]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I still owe you a reply on this general subject.  Hope this helps.

I think you are right about "relativism" generally speaking.   There are no rules objectively- "truth" cannot even be defined- no one has agreed on that one in 2500 years of trying.

But one must be careful about the CONTEXT and the PURPOSE of statements which are "relative" and which might NOT be "relative"

My position is that even given relativism, you need to be aware of the context of what is "relative" and the "rules" of relativism and truth : DOING SOMETHING with the concept.  Without a PURPOSE for the concept as a part of a paradigm truth itself becomes irrelevant.

Suppose  in our time, around 10 thousand years BCE, on the planet Garfunkle in the Whasis system, the battle of Youmar destroyed all life on the planet. IT ACTUALLY Happened!

Who cares?

 

The term Instrumentalism I think provides those limits.  One must look at the OBJECTVE orPURPOSE of the statements which may or may not "work" to achieve a particular goal.

Even within relativism, cooked spaghetti does not make a good material for making a crescent wrench.

The material itself must correspond to the task at hand.  You cannot make water into a cane to help you walk out of water.

Yes a relativist may look at that statement and insist that you can if you are in the arctic, and make it out of ice.  I like to watch a survival oriented show called "Life at 5 Below" where one could go out and argue that freezers are a total waste of money.

YES that's true - because he doesn't need one!

But if you live on the equator, they might be an absolute necessity

That's why I like the concept- derived from Pragmatism- of "Instrumentalism" which encourages us to see propositions as "true" IFF they help us attain some purpose.

Philosophers in this school can be seen as "thought mechanics" who use philosophical tools to make sure that the intellectual tools we use achieve the PURPOSE desired.

So what is the "purpose" of Morals?  Happy lives for all people in some kind of collective.  If you were the only human being on the planet you would need no "morals"- yes that's true.   Maybe you could make rules for yourself or not. Maybe suicide would be the only thing "immoral" for you, maybe not.

But humanity will not allow you to go around killing people for fun.   You will end up in prison.  So relative morals may theoretically be "nice" but totally they don't work any more than trying to use spaghetti as a crescent wrench!

The PURPOSE of the Golden Rule is to provide 1- a rational rule for establishing moral rules which ultimately- 2- bring greater happiness to society as a whole.

So yes theoretically, like "truth" "morals" must be seen in the CONTEXT of "what works to achieve a purpose".  This is Pragmatism and Instrumentalism in one example.

So yes, you can believe anything you like about morals and truth-BUT there is not much one can do with relative morals.  It does you no good except for you to get your jollies but that behavior could cause you to end up in prison.

THAT's the problem

I personally don't disagree with the concept of instrumentalism and pragmatism in relation to morality, but those concepts only exist inside the realm of relativity.   This is all being discussed in the context of Native American culture and beliefs.  It has been postulated that some of their beliefs and practices were not moral "in and of themselves".   You and I both know that doesn't make sense, and only makes sense in context of a larger relative framework or paradigm of belief.   Specifically mentioned was piercing genitals and human sacrifice.  From our modern and relative framework, those things wouldn't necessarily be moral for our society and culture. But from a Mayan framework, they viewed human sacrifice as a moral necessity in order to preserve the balance of the cosmos.  From that framework, the act served a specific purpose which was to preserve the greater good and well-being.  In regards to piercing genitals, I am not as familiar with that, but perhaps it served a similar moral purpose that circumcision serves for some religious groups of our day.  As you can see, even within instrumentalism and the pragmatic goal of happiness in morality, there can be vast and widely differing practices and perspectives of what is moral and immoral.  It is all still relative even within that framework.      

The goal of "happiness" is itself a relative goal for example and one that I know many theists would disagree with.  Many theists don't believe that happiness is God's ultimate goal for us and base their morality on subjugation to God's absolute will in the pursuit of holiness, not happiness.    For those who do accept this framework and goal of morality, happiness itself is extremely relative.   What you are describing is exactly the same as what Sam Harris proposes as a basis for a Godless morality.  I think you will find that many theists will disagree with this relative instrumentalism idea of morality though, and that theists and atheists alike will disagree as to what acts and behaviors specifically are moral or immoral.  Just as the pursuit of God is a relative affair and few will agree on the fine points even within a specific sect, so too is the pursuit of morality. 

Edited February 28, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

While I don't disagree with any of that, it sounds like semantics to me when applied to this specific discussion.

None of us can really know another person.  My children can only know me in a relative sense, for example, and I only know my parents in the same way.  But we still consider that to be 'knowing' someone.  That knowledge continues to grow as we continue to interact with them, but it does not have to be complete before we can claim that we have it.

(and I don't interpret that verse in John to be saying that knowing God and Jesus Christ is something that comes after exaltation.  That wouldn't make any sense.  We need to know them as we journey toward eternal life through our covenants, not once we get there).

I like this talk from April 2017 GC by Elder Grow-

I bolded the specific ways that he talks about us being able to know God.

It is not semantics when applied to this specific discussion, which is about the morality/immorality of Native American beliefs, morals and practices.  See my reply to Bukowski above. 

I don't have any problem with claiming to know God, or claiming to know God's will for you, as long as it is understood to be in a relative way.  But once a person or culture pushes their morality on another culture as the ONLY legitimate morality, then I have a problem with that.  Morality is relative, just as knowing God is relative, just as knowing another person (as you mention) is relative.  We CAN'T know the absolute.    My problem was when you claimed something is moral/immoral "in and of itself".  You agree that you can't know something "in and of itself" in any absolute way, so it is not a claim that a mortal human can make.  One can only claim that something is moral/immoral within a certain relative framework or paradigm.

Edited February 28, 2024 by pogi

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

 Respectfully I do not see at all how the Bible vs are similar.  

 

This is not a response let alone engagement which is why I will continue to call this race baiting. If you want to make wild claims, then document them. With SCHOLARSHIP, not wikipedia. 

I'll start with Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery by Haynes published by Oxford, 2002. (I'm not going to waste time with proper referencing because I know you will hand wave it all away anyway.) I have at least a dozen more books on this topic. If you want anymore of this, CFR your out of hand dismissals of scholarship. 

To begin (p 7,) the Hamitic myth took hold in the 9th/10th century by Muslim exegetes. That is how much time you will have to cover. But back to slavery, 

"During the heyday of slavery in America, a racial understanding of Gen 9-11 was so much a part of cultural common sense that defensive arguments were no longer required."

This is what happened with the BOM mentions of black that now have to be undone, just as the Biblical mentions have to be undone. (See the similarity there at least?) Ironicially, this quote describes exactly what you are doing now. You think defensive arguments for  your racialized opinion are not required. Meaning, you are insistent on keeping that racialization active or....

 

Quote

In addition, it seems to me that these passages and the issue of dark vs white skin are another item that demonstrates the BoM is not ancient but a 19th century production since the concept of skin color seems to be a popular myth in the early 1800s and Joseph and crew were quite familiar with it.

This is your real focus, just like trying to divert this to "but... prophets!" Where you really want to go is that the BOM is fake. So why not keep it there rather than trying to perpetuate racism? That, and I will keep describing it, is race baiting and nothing but.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Biblical racism is such an important and critical topic that I have at least a dozen books about it from serious people seriously trying to undo the damage and right the record. It was not the Bible or BOM that was racist, it was those reading into it. Just like you are still doing.

Quote

So, I am still not convinced that this new approach to the skin color issue is really substantive based on the words of the passages and on what LDS leaders have taught for most of the history of the church. If you and others want to reinterpret them and claim this is what they meant all along more power to you. It would be nice if the LDS leadership would back that up by taking the same position and stating the prior leaders were wrong in their understanding.  Though that creates other problems.

They have stated prior leaders were wrong but here you go again. Those quotes have always been posted here when they occurred. That gives you LDS.org and this board to google...if you truly have any interest. 

And LDS leaders? Did you catch how long this has been going with the Bible? Do you also disdain what BIblical scholars have done "with what they meant all along?" Do you think THEY have been successful or are you wishing them "more power to you" as well? Would you also like to undo the statement below? It is identical to what has happened with the misreading of the BOM, that "perverse exegesis" you are hell bent on preserving. 

Quote

[Desmond] Tutu, who speaks with authority for millions of victims of racist readings of Genesis.  From the first chapters of the Bible, writes Tutu, "one learns that unity and wholeness were God's will for the creation. But this primal unity was disrupted by sin. The Genesis stories culminate in the shattering story of the Tower of Babel where human community and fellowship become impossible." This is the ultimate consequence, Tutu writes, "of sin, separation, alienation, apartness." Tutu calls it a "perverse exegesis " that would see in the Tower of Babel" a justification for racial separation, a divine sanction for the diversit of nations." For this would be to confuse the divine intention for humankind with the divine punishment for sin. And that, Tutu declares, would be a fundamental misreading of the Bible. The Curse of Cain, p 218,219.

                                                        Job 30:30 (KJV)  My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat

 

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If that is what you think then you are missing my point entirely.  The main issue is what did the writers think?  What did the LDS leaders think about the passages from their keystone text? And is it an honest approach to argue that they were simply products of their time, they got it wrong and have fixed it (the fix it part is debatable).

You know darn well what the leaders thought. You still seem to be under the impression that we, here, support racism.  They were products of their time. And some were racist. Those two things can exist at the same time. What is your point???

CFR with any modern leaders who have used the BOM verses that contain "skin" to justify racism. No more accusations. CFR so we have something to respond to. 

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:28 PM, Calm said:

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
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction?lang=eng

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/training/black-members-of-the-church/section-4/africa?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-26-the-revelation-on-the-priesthood?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/12/05-bowed-down-to-the-grave?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-56-official-declaration-2?lang=eng

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-priesthood-restored-podcast-episode-5-transcript

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

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-material-2019/lesson-27-teacher-material-the-revelation-on-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Thank you for providing these resources.

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not semantics when applied to this specific discussion, which is about the morality/immorality of Native American beliefs, morals and practices.  See my reply to Bukowski above. 

I don't have any problem with claiming to know God, or claiming to know God's will for you, as long as it is understood to be in a relative way.  But once a person or culture pushes their morality on another culture as the ONLY legitimate morality, then I have a problem with that.  Morality is relative, just as knowing God is relative, just as knowing another person (as you mention) is relative.  We CAN'T know the absolute.    My problem was when you claimed something is moral/immoral "in and of itself".  You agree that you can't know something "in and of itself" in any absolute way, so it is not a claim that a mortal human can make.  One can only claim that something is moral/immoral within a certain relative framework or paradigm.

Ok, I guess we'll have to be ok with you having a problem with some people (including some Native Americans) believing that there are aspects of those cultures (along with every other culture) that is immoral.

Because yes, some things are immoral in and of themselves and no amount of acceptance by society changes that.  It is a reasonable claim given my acceptance of the doctrines of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and views of God's ability to communicate truth to His children. 

My claims can certainly be wrong, but that's different than suggesting they are not claims that can be made at all.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you for providing these resources.

Have they impacted your thinking at all?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok, I guess we'll have to be ok with you having a problem with some people (including some Native Americans) believing that there are aspects of those cultures (along with every other culture) that is immoral.

Because yes, some things are immoral in and of themselves and no amount of acceptance by society changes that.  It is a reasonable claim given my acceptance of the doctrines of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and views of God's ability to communicate truth to His children. 

My claims can certainly be wrong, but that's different than suggesting they are not claims that can be made at all.

I know we have gone off on a side-track but to be clear, my problem is not and was not that some aspects of one culture is viewed as immoral from within the framework of another culture.  That makes sense.  My problem is the ethnocentrically motivated practices which sought to eradicate other cultures/customs/beliefs/morals one child at a time by using deceitful means to baptize them into a different paradigm of beliefs/religion all together in an attempt to make them more white (both literally to fulfill prophecy, but also culturally, religiously, and morally speaking).  Not all of their beliefs and culture are immoral, even from a Mormon perspective, yet there was no attempt to understand and preserve those aspects of their culture. 

The belief that something is moral or immoral "in and of itself" is extremely dangerous, because one can't know such things in any absolute sense and so people act on imperfect knowledge based on what some moral "authority" says.  War is often justified by it. 

Edited February 28, 2024 by pogi

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is the same understanding the the LDS leaders teach about the word.

And what would that be? I'm wanting to know what you understand that word to mean.

Edited February 28, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving
Grammar

[juliann]

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you for providing these resources.

And?

[juliann]

The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism, Schwartz, University of Oxford Press, 1997.

Quote

"The Bible itself is not "racist," although many people who read/interpret it have put it to such service. My own readings intended to draw out how contradictory biblical narrativess are the subject of group identity, on who is a foreigner and who an Isrealite and on whether in the end these categories lose meaning altogether. " p 103.

More of how Biblical and BOM scholarship merge on this topic. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

35 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And what would that be? I'm wanting to know what you understand that word to mean.

Oops.. posted this by accident 😮

 

Edited February 28, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know we have gone off on a side-track but to be clear, my problem is not and was not that some aspects of one culture is viewed as immoral from within the framework of another culture.  That makes sense.  My problem is the ethnocentrically motivated practices which sought to eradicate other cultures/customs/beliefs/morals one child at a time by using deceitful means to baptize them into a different paradigm of beliefs/religion all together in an attempt to make them more white (both literally to fulfill prophecy, but also culturally, religiously, and morally speaking).  Not all of their beliefs and culture are immoral, even from a Mormon perspective, yet there was no attempt to understand and preserve those aspects of their culture. 

The belief that something is moral or immoral "in and of itself" is extremely dangerous, because one can't know such things in any absolute sense and so people act on imperfect knowledge based on what some moral "authority" says.  War is often justified by it. 

that has not been the scope of my part of this discussion.  But I agree the absolutism can be dangerous. Religion can be dangerous. Atheism can be dangerous. Relativism can be dangerous.

Evil has been done, or allowed to flourish, under the banner of every “ism”.  Whether or not something can be used for evil is not a good standard to determine whether or not it is of worth.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The goal of "happiness" is itself a relative goal for example and one that I know many theists would disagree with.  Many theists don't believe that happiness is God's ultimate goal for us and base their morality on subjugation to God's absolute will in the pursuit of holiness, not happiness.    For those who do accept this framework and goal of morality, happiness itself is extremely relative.   What you are describing is exactly the same as what Sam Harris proposes as a basis for a Godless morality.  I think you will find that many theists will disagree with this relative instrumentalism idea of morality though, and that theists and atheists alike will disagree as to what acts and behaviors specifically are moral or immoral.  Just as the pursuit of God is a relative affair and few will agree on the fine points even within a specific sect, so too is the pursuit of morality. 

That is precisely why I saw in LDS beliefs compatibility with an American humanistic milieu.

God as a Superhuman carpenter creating worlds out of found materials, not unlike the pioneers,  sending his son (or Himself as Jehovah/Jesus) on the task of learning every pain and foible of Everyman, every human joy son and pain by taking it on himself, thereby becoming our "Father".

I love that paradigm 

And then he replies that I am on HIS team, unless I screw up with my tendencies, which must be overcome to be like Him.

Eternal Thanks for the chance, Father, !

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If this is the case and the priesthood ban, as well as yhow LDS leaders taught about the BoM passages under scrutiny here, were simply a result of the Prophets,Seer and revelators culture one wonders why God would not intervene if they were teaching false racism.  There were plenty of abolitionists in the 19th century. Not everyone was racist.   

And yet, JS was preaching to blacks. The problem they then had was the ire of the people who hated them who weren't abolitionists. It led to them withdrawing for survival, as I said earlier, in that area a preacher had been killed for including blacks.

Are you not aware that Mormons were called "black?"  I have two books from LDS scholars who go into this. Does that not give you pause for even a 19th century use of the label "black?" Or does it at least provoke some curiosity to become more informed on these topics before you assume and accuse?

For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and M1830-2013. Russell Stevenson, Greg Kofford Books 2014. (Again, since I know this will be ignored I'm not taking the time to accurately reference in proper form)

Quote

For the remainder of Joseph Smith's life, Joseph was forced to performan awkward negotiation between his own expansive vision for Zion, the racial prejudices of his own people, and the real consequences that could come from bieng labeld an abolitionist. p 9

Quote

Pundits freely assailed Phelps and the Saints with racial epithets, with one newspaper editor labeling them as "Black Mormons" whose impulse for race-mixing would incite havoc on the state's racial order. p 7

Paul Reeves goes into Mormons being labeled black in greater detail but I can't find his book right now. https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Evil has been done, or allowed to flourish, under the banner of every “ism”.  Whether or not something can be used for evil is not a good standard to determine whether or not it is of worth.

This is why I find a pragmatic Instrumentalism so important.

That's the whole thing right there.

The standard is Alma 32.  Is it a sweet Doctrine that improves your life?

If so, it is "true".

 

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

And yet, JS was preaching to blacks. The problem they then had was the ire of the people who hated them who weren't abolitionists. It led to them withdrawing for survival, as I said earlier, in that area a preacher had been killed for including blacks.

Are you not aware that Mormons were called "black?"  I have two books from LDS scholars who go into this. Does that not give you pause for even a 19th century use of the label "black?" Or does it at least provoke some curiosity to become more informed on these topics before you assume and accuse?

For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and M1830-2013. Russell Stevenson, Greg Kofford Books 2014. (Again, since I know this will be ignored I'm not taking the time to accurately reference in proper form)

Paul Reeves goes into Mormons being labeled black in greater detail but I can't find his book right now. https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071

This is true.

Mormons were allegedly becoming a "mongrel race", said critics, because they were mixing with non-white races.

So Brigham put a stop to it.

But remember the civil war was just around the corner.

Maybe that separation granted Utah/the church survival.

See an actual copied image of an Elder and his mixed family on the link above in @juliann 's post

 

Edited February 28, 2024 by mfbukowski