Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Teancum]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, just because people used to interpret this stuff literally (and based on the culture they were most familiar with, as BD points out), doesn't mean that can't legitimately evolve to a different understanding.  A clear reading of the creation account in Genesis says a whole lot that Christians used to take literally but that that few do today. 

Besides, the most "clear" reading is often determined by our biases and preconceived notions.  Would our 19th century understanding of those verses have been the "clear" and obvious interpretation for Middle eastern people in 600 BC?  Probably not.  Racism/differentiating by skin color wasn't a thing back then, so that interpretation might not have been a clear one for that culture.

A metaphorical interpretation or one that includes cultural understanding of race and skin color in the near east (still not sure I'm referring to that area correctly) are valid options when interpreting the BOM if they are valid options for interpreting the Bible (and clearly, many bible scholars and readers find them to be valid options).

(And I just want to point out that members are not the only ones that have a stake in fighting for specific interpretations.  There are ex-members who want the racist interpretations to stand because those interpretations have played some part in transitioning out of the faith for them and fit with their personal narrative in regards to Latter-day Saints and the church).

Please find me any LDS leader with authority that advocate this approach to the BoM language that talks about the curse being a skin of darkness. 

See this is what LDS defenders do.  They move the goalposts. Constantly.  If the text meant something other than what is says why didn't God inspire Joseph Smith to translate it into the most correct book into what it really means?

[Okrahomer]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

tell me, with any measure of intellectual honesty, that his statement (as he presented it) isn't an expression of his personal preference

Serious question:  how is anything written here not an expression of personal preference?  Agreed:  some expressions are more logical and/or informed, but is it possible to think and write without expressing some sort of personal preference?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It's been a branch of thought that's been gaining steam for at least the last decade. I think I first ran into the idea maybe 15-ish years ago. So if this isn't a thought that you think about more regularly, it wouldn't surprise me if you missed it. Though there were a lot of organic parallel thoughts popping up before and around the time of the gospel topics essay, particularly in certain circles.

I first heard this from Brant Gardner if I recall.  I was even still a hanging on believer back then and found his arguments nonsensical.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think Alma Chapter 3 rebuts this idea. When it talks about the Amlicites marking themselves there is an implied contrast to the skins of darkness that God caused to happen. If it were a fashion choice I would think Mormon would mention that the Amlicites were doing the same thing and there wouldn’t be the contrasting bit about the Amlicites putting the mark on themselves.

In this chapter we also learn that the Lamanite warriors only wore loincloths and some armor. Does loincloth coloration really make you loathsome and would it be an enduring mark? And also I don’t know of any culture that would be this monochromatic about dying their clothing only either white or black for centuries.

I am not sure there would be differentiation between types of ceremonial warfare attire or if they would refer to the complete appearance that could involve certain types of clothing, certain types of armor and headgear and body paint/tattoos.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I first heard this from Brant Gardner if I recall.  I was even still a hanging on believer back then and found his arguments nonsensical.

Can you explain why they needed to search for a Lamanite if all it was is skin color?  One can look at the Tabernacle Choir on tv and pick out different races without effort, embarrassingly easy at times. (Alma 55) and why the rest could be Nephites in Laman’s group approaching Lamanite guards without raising suspicions (he was the only one who spoke apparently)?

Edited February 21, 2024 by Calm

[champatsch]

In terms of textual analysis, the term skin(s) occurs 14 times in the Book of Mormon. In the clearest cases with grammatical possession, it refers to the skin of the animal or the person(s). The first one (and the first dictated) is mh1713, his skin, clearly human skin. Almost always when there is a reference to the color or shade of skin(s) there is grammatical possession and so an unstrained approach will conclude that these instances most likely refer to human skin. (There is an indef. article supplied in the critical text at aa0305, since it is otherwise identical to the phrasing in aa4320.)

Edited February 21, 2024 by champatsch

[blackstrap]

When I see a group of Hell's Angels riding down the street, I can see how "skins of blackness " can be both literal and metaphorical. Mind you some of them are actually just big soft teddy bears ,right? 

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

In terms of textual analysis, the term skin(s) occurs 14 times in the Book of Mormon. In the clearest cases with grammatical possession, it refers to the skin of the animal or the person(s). The first one (and the first dictated) is mh1713, his skin, clearly human skin. Almost always when there is a reference to the color or shade of skin(s) there is grammatical possession and so an unstrained approach will conclude that these instances most likely refer to human skin. (There is an indef. article supplied in the critical text at aa0305, since it is otherwise identical to the phrasing in aa4320.)

Thanks for that. I always appreciate your thoughtful approach. I hope all is well with you. 

Edited February 21, 2024 by jkwilliams

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you explain why they needed to search for a Lamanite if all it was is skin color?  One can look at the Tabernacle Choir on tv and pick out different races without effort, embarrassingly easy at times. (Alma 55) and why the rest could be Nephites in Laman’s group approaching Lamanite guards without raising suspicions (he was the only one who spoke apparently)?

Can you explain what how in the world a skin of blackness that causes a people to be loathsome to another means anything other than what is says as well as the way essentially all LDS leadership understood this to this day and age?

[Brant Gardner]

Things we should know to approach this topic:

1) There was a belief in a dark-skinned race eliminated a white race that was promoted and probably fairly well known in the New York region. It was paralleled by the need to fit the Native Americans into a biblical framework where they didn't  otherwise fit. The lost 10 tribes trope is similar though not as specific.

2) The way the Book of Mormon was read by its earliest reception artist was particularly literal, and influenced by the cultural assumptions about the origins of the Native Americans. Many of those ideas were semi-codified for a long time because they were believed and promoted by prominent Saints (and apostles and a prophet or two--or more).

3) The idea that there was a pigmentation change is demonstrably unscientific. It just doesn't happen. This has led to a more careful reading of the text--with various results.

3a) One of the results has been to find the "real" reason behind a physical pigmentation change. This is where we get the skins argument as well as the tattoo and black body paint. None of those do more than put a bandage on the issue. They really don't explain the text.

3b) The other option has been to see the skin of blackness as metaphorical. That black/white symbolic dyad explains all the verses that fit into this equation (including the reason Joseph changed from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome." 

Personally, I like the black body paint as the reason the metaphor developed as specifically "black." I tried to convince the author of that article that it was best explained as a visual image leading to the metaphor than as a description that reified the black skin. I didn't get him to change.

When you decide that you have to carefully read the text rather than react to the way it was read by the early audience, you find that there is no physical basis for any pigmentation change. The text belies the literal reading as a change in pigment. The need to find the Lamanite is one of the examples. I recently recognized another. After the Amlicite and Lamanite battle, the Nephites have to sort the dead. They determine who is a Lamanite by the shaved head. If they were black and everyone else was white, the shaved head wouldn't be needed as a distinction.

There is no final conclusion to this because we still have those who insist that a skin of blackness must be read as black skin. There are probably Church members who remember President Kimble believing that the Native American skin color actually became lighter. Those ideas will persist for a while longer. However, there is no way to consistently read the text that allows for pigmentation change.

On the other side of black is white. As the Nephite apostles and Christ are praying, they become white! I thought they already were. 😉

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If Latter-day Saints want to renegotiate the meaning of their sacred texts to root out racism, more power to them. I just wish, while they were at it, they would hurry up and accept their gay brothers and sisters too. There is WAY more scriptural support for God using skin color as a marker of disfavor than there is of divine displeasure with homosexuality. 

Edited February 21, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[champatsch]

I'm interested to learn the truth about all this at some future time.

Anyway, there is nonbiblical early modern meaning in the text, and there is a lot of biblical early modern meaning as well.

One meaning of black skin in the early modern period is extremely dark skin; another meaning, in the same entry in OED2 (def. 1c), is little darker than many Europeans. The latter meaning is the likely one for the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you explain what how in the world a skin of blackness that causes a people to be loathsome to another means anything other than what is says as well as the way essentially all LDS leadership understood this to this day and age?

If you want to say it doesn’t have to make sense because it’s fiction and not about a real event and Joseph messed up a plot point, then just say it. I am only curious about how those who insist it must be referring to race explain that part, not as a challenge, but actual curiosity. Ignoring it is certainly one approach, not terribly satisfying though.  

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I first heard this from Brant Gardner if I recall.  I was even still a hanging on believer back then and found his arguments nonsensical.

I honestly don't blame you. When I first was introduced to the idea I dismissed it. Not once but multiple times. Usually before getting through the first page of whatever argument was being made for non-racialist readings. Even though the race oriented idea was frustrating on a good day and nonsensical on a bad one, it was hard to see beyond generations of cultural assumptions/interpretation that was given to me as a fact. I watched a presentation by Marvin Perkins that finally made me ask "What does it look like to read these passages as symbolic change instead of skin tone?" I went through every last passage of the tone changes and then every passage of a major lamanite/nephite conversion sequence...and then moved out to the PoGP and even the aspects in the OT that are taken that way. And suddenly these disjointed dissonant passages actually flowed and made better sense in a pattern of covenantal language. 

At this point I can't see the other interpretation really. It doesn't make even remote sense compared to a symbolic reading. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

Please, you bear very little of the blame for this ongoing B.S.

Judging by how much it's used, shooting the messenger must be an important apologetic took.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Obviously a traditional reading that focuses on skin color will seem more initially intuitive. But IMHO that's only  because the BoM was borne into a culture where the most distinctive marker of social order was race. We still live in part in said culture (though it's reduced in potency). It's the one that if you grew up particularly in the US, would be most available as a reason, the one that got little to no push back for generations as it fit within their context. The actual book is super inconsistent if read around literal change in skin tone. Not only logically, but within the internal definition and use of the mark/curse.  

@jkwilliams I have a minute to finish off my thought. On what I mean by internal consistency. There's already been really good answers about the problems in the texts. Namely that there's multiple smaller accounts where there's obviously so little physiological difference between the nephites and the lamanites that style or dress and speech are the big indicators of distinction. Even where the language of "skins," "blackness," or "white/fair/delightsome" are used, the context focuses on behaviors, degree of righteousness, cultural cues, and degree of animosity between the two groups. The big ones are 2 Ne 4, Jacob 4, Alma 3, 3 Ne 2. All of these expound on the curse/mark language with a context that focuses on their differences in behavior and level of animosity. When they discuss looks, they focus on dress and body modifications (shorn heads, marks on foreheads, loin cloths, etc). So it means focusing and prioritizing only on the word skin and filling in a modern definition, rather than letting the context on how the phrase in the passage is used in said passages to define the term.

The cursing/mark are used interchangeably in language and always have a caveat of changing based on a person's righteousness and animosity towards the Nephites. So these changes are basically immediately. As people that were "black" suddenly become "white" within the time it takes to convert and align with the nephites....this can lead to 3 convoluted solutions.

a) That rate of mixing with existing populations lightened or darkened the decedents of lehi (this is entirely inferred, again based on our modern assumption that focuses on literal skin color as the defining feature of group ID and ignoring much of the actual text)

b) that they had a unique form of cursing that has literally never happened in any other scriptural context except maybe the PoGP....but definitely not in recent times. Which is disjointed and contradictory to the idea of God being and engaging the same with Their children since forever.

C) JS made this all up and juxtaposed common racial thought into the text. Which only works if you have a poor understand of the evolution of racialized thought in the US. The BoM is only a validation of this if it's read superficially. It conflicts and contradicts with a lot of thought and even how people at that time discussed race. Especially the more you look at the details around it

 

It prioritizes and ignores other conversion accounts and descriptors in the BoM and the language used in these texts that very much parallel or use similar phrasing, but doesn't have the "skin" language directly tied to it. Examples of this include earlier language in 1 ne that describes the "multitudes" of people who "obtained the land of promise" as white and "like unto" the nephite pre-slaying. (This has several problems of a literal reading. It only focuses on assuming the gentiles that "obtained the land" were literally white or looked like the nephites before they were out. Said Nephit group, who had intermixed and lost all labels/distinctions for 200 yrs with the lamanites and other ites and were largely a political distinction based on what traditions they maintained by the end. Said "multitudes" that would entail waves of immigrants from every major continent in the old world. So you have to put a ton of assumptions in there to make it work). There's the mary descriptor, that when you look at the context of the beginning of the chapter, it's clear that the language is paralleling the description of the tree of life. But we don't assume Mary literally looked kinda like a shiny tree. 

It ignores several other conversions where skin language isn't used at all, but curse removal definitely is. The biggest one is the anti-nephi-lehites, that's described in lengthy detail about all the ways they changed. It focuses on their means of industry, their correspondence and relationship with the nephites, their religious beliefs, their covenants made and finishes by saying the "curse did no more follow them" (alma 23). Again one can assume it was about skin tone if you want, but that's not remotely mentioned in the context of the text and there was plenty of space to mention it. What is emphasized is again spiritual behaviors, alliances, and general customs. (It also started with a major description of conversion of the king that again uses of light/dark to describe his conversion...but this time it's a veil that's lifted.)

There's also a passage in Helaman 5 that is also ignored. This one does use the word darkness in it....but this time it relates to a cloud. The lamanites and nephite dissenters are surrounded in a cloud of darkness that a voice comes out of. The Nephite missionaries among them are seen in the dark cloudiness with shining faces looking like angels. They end up asking "What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?" Which starts a pretty spectacular conversion that leads them to the traditions and doctrines of the nephites with the promise that "the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you" and then being encircled by a pillar of fire. Which starts even more lamanite conversions...and again the same big changes are mentioned: changes in allegiance, changes in spiritual beliefs and customs, loss of false traditions. 

It also ignores the use of whiteness when jesus comes. He comes to a people who were technically already united in earlier chapters and described as becoming "white" earlier in 3 ne. These are the more righteous folk of the lands...so it's a fair assumption they fit into that "white" category. They're introduce and engaged with the ways of Jesus and then become "white" again "like jesus" (3 ne 19). This whiteness is described as being white like his "countenance" and "garments"...so much so that it exceeds the whiteness of anything else on earth. 

Later on, post zion society for 200 years and when both groups have become thoroughly corrupted, there's several descriptions that hale back to these narratives to help describe how bad the people have gotten. 

Again, there's no reason to ignore these verses. They directly parallel the language and descriptions used in the major "skin" oriented verses. But when blackness or whiteness is interpreted from a modern era lens that has/had an unhealthy fixation on racial differences, these get at best de-prioritized or completely ignored all together. The text becomes weirdly disjointed, the curse is only partially removed only a couple of times even though it is always conditional on covenant bearing, the mark and the curse are differentiated even though the text uses them interchangeably, etc. 

In the end it made more sense that it was a symbolic shorthand for several major problems than as a literal singular descriptor. It was less disjointed. Skin tone doesn't work the way the word "skin of blackness" and its derivatives are used in the BoM. And the same phrasing is readily switched out with other imagery and overtly symbolic terms that have the same black/white motif but are obviously not about skin tone in a way that is obviously referencing the OG cursing.    
 

Again, I get why this negotiation with the text would seem at first non-sensical. I really do. Except when I really immersed myself in these texts...what became more non-sensical was the traditions of our fathers. So following the example of the BoM, it seems better to let go of the errors of their traditions for a greater light. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited February 21, 2024 by BlueDreams

[rodheadlee]

I know one thing if you run around in the jungle with just a loin cloth on in the tropics your skin will become very very dark. It's taken my legs about 3 years in cold rainy weather with pants on for my tan to start peeling off. It was really thick and it's coming off in chunks. 

Just trying to inject some humor into the subject.

 

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Stumbled across this apologetic, which is a doozy. 

The gist of it is that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Lamanites being given a skin of blackness, it means that the skins they wore as clothing were black, whereas the Nephites wore “white and delightsome” skins. In short, these were fashion choices similar to gang colors. 

As Dan McClellen put it, this is “not a good theory.” 

Things like this just appear dishonest and gaslight-y on the whole, given the actual church positions on race over its history.

People do what they can to survive, and attachment to beliefs can feel like a matter of life and death. So it should not be surprising that these apologetics exist. 

The alternative is a church who at best says, "We don't know, we were wrong and we are likely still wrong about many things." Can a church like that benefit people?

(I think so. )

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

If you want to say it doesn’t have to make sense because it’s fiction and not about a real event and Joseph messed up a plot point, then just say it.

I am not following you here.  I am not connecting your comment to the skin of darkness topic.  Whether it is a fictitious work or not does not seem to have bearing on the words about skin color.

12 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 

I am only curious about how those who insist it must be referring to race explain that part, not as a challenge, but actual curiosity. Ignoring it is certainly one approach, not terribly satisfying though.  

I am simply noting that a simple reading of the text as well as how, as far as I know, all LDS leaders who have commented on the passages, understood and spoke about them, indicate is it speaking of dark skin.  If you can find LDS authority that teaches an alternative interpretation please share it.  Other wise I view this as another apologetic argument trying to spin something uncomfortable to something more acceptable to us today.  If the passages really don't refer to skin color perhaps a LDS leader with authority can teach this and repudiate how their predecessors taught about these passages.  

[BlueDreams]

Quote

 

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Things like this just appear dishonest and gaslight-y on the whole, given the actual church positions on race over its history.

This seems like a misuse of the word gaslight. No one is saying that these passages were never taken to mean skintone or race and that there weren't commonly accepted interpretations that was apart of mainstream LDS thought for much of church history that assumed this to one degree or another. That would be "gaslight-y." 

Shifting positions and saying let's move away from a modern lens that over focuses on race as a defining marker Is not gaslighting. Pointing to a less contradictory and more internally consistent interpretation of scripture is not the same as a psychological shorthand for a form of emotional abuse. Personally it really annoys me when people over extend the definition of gaslighting to mean just about any form of argument or discussion that encourages people to re-examine beliefs and perceptions. That is a healthy and necessary activity. No one grows if that can't be a thing. 

That form of mental shift is not the same as the mental manipulation I see my clients who are emotionally abused go through. Its a real phenomenon that is really dangerous to the person's mental health and grasp of reality. This tik tok vid is by no means that, even though I somewhat disagree (I'm not a fan of promoting it as a single tangible thing. My personal interpretation was that it was a shorthand for several things that was antithetical to nephite customs and safety). Disagreement about the meaning in a book is not a sign of being gaslit. It's a sign that we can differ in opinion in the church. 

As for actual church position, the current one is the one in the gospel topics essay about race and priesthood. 

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.

There isn't an asterisk saying *except in the book of Mormon where it clearly states otherwise and no other interpretation could reasonably be made of said passages. 

The current method that it is taught in come follow me is with this statement, which quotes extensively from gospel topics: 

Quote

In Nephi’s day the curse of the Lamanites was that they were “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence … because of their iniquity” (2 Nephi 5:20–21). This meant that the Spirit of the Lord was withdrawn from their lives. When Lamanites later embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ, “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18). The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them. The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant. Prophets affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing. President Russell M. Nelson declared: “I assure you that your standing before God is not determined by the color of your skin. Favor or disfavor with God is dependent upon your devotion to God and His commandments and not the color of your skin” (“Let God Prevail,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2020, 94). As Nephi taught, the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). See also “Till We All Come in the Unity of the Faith” (video), Gospel Library.

So basically the official statement is we don't fully know what was meant. There's no statement saying that people shouldn't explore the context to better understand the language used from a non-racialized lens. 

We are in a church that believes in continuing revelation and restoration. We're not beholden to everything past leaders assumed. Reinterpreting scriptures was there from the start and was a foundational concept in our faith. It shouldn't be surprising that an old racist interpretation is dying out as an explanation for these passages as we collectively grow away from that aspect of our past. It shouldn't be surprising that as old theories are disavowed new ones are sprouting up that are more consistent with the actual context of the BOM texts, let alone the Church's current position. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the church.*

 

 

*Also not saying there are ways the church could potentially do this better. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

am simply noting that a simple reading of the text

That is the problem, imo.  A simple reading of those verses (not referring to any others) wouldn’t need to have them search for a Lamanite in the troops anymore than one would need to search for a Native American in the Tabernacle Choir…they would have just had to ask the troop leaders who has a Lamanite in their troops and to go get him.  

Edited February 21, 2024 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am simply noting that a simple reading of the text as well as how, as far as I know, all LDS leaders who have commented on the passages, understood and spoke about them, indicate is it speaking of dark skin.  If you can find LDS authority that teaches an alternative interpretation please share it.  Other wise I view this as another apologetic argument trying to spin something uncomfortable to something more acceptable to us today.  If the passages really don't refer to skin color perhaps a LDS leader with authority can teach this and repudiate how their predecessors taught about these passages.  

For better and worse, this is not how the church tends to shift on things. They're not into big repudiations. What usually happens is that it goes quiet and theres a quiet correction in how contemporary material words things. That's what's happened in the last 20 years or so. Find me a single statement in the last 2 decades from an apostle or prophet that talks about this topic to the general people. I can't think of a single one. 

The closest is what I quoted above, but I'll quote it again:

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.

Again, there is no caveate to this disavowal that gives an exception to the BoM.

Lastly a "simple reading" is never simple. We go into that reading with our perceptions, cultural contexts, collective relative histories and personal experiences guiding what sticks out. That's why each time a person reads scripture, what sticks out and how they interpret it will and can shift.

Personally as a biracial person the flaws in this common "simple reading" were always maddeningly contradictory. It flew in the face of my lived reality, it didn't make sense within the totality of the book of Mormon, and it usually needed other extra theories to kinda prop it up and make it slightly less of a racist interpretation that were equally not backed by a plain reading of the BOM. Most the statements relied on even then, were getting literally old (as in from the 1960's to 80's if not older). Even my teenager self with all the powers of a teenager brain could feel that something was absolutely holey about this interpretation.

But I was also given no other interpretation to work with for a long time (felt like a long time from my teenager self...again there's been radical shifts in this in my lifetime, particularly in my 20's). So in the silence the old narrative would get more validation than other interpretations. That shifted as more and more voices began to get more time in the LDS public spheres. 

The "simple reading" was only simple when largely only white people from a US era that was overtly racist were the major ones reading, utilizing, and interpreting the text. There was less diversity in perspective to give people reason to pause and think about the inconsistencies and problems in the reading. Those that saw issue with it were still few in voice and/or influence. That's shifted as we move further and further from said era and more voices have been added to the conversation and are valued in it. 

it was artificially simple for decades, yes. But It was never a simple reading for me. If I had more access to voices and quotes like the ones shown in this thread, I wouldn't have had a moment of difficulty with having the clarification, because the other option was contradictory on a good day and this one leads to a far more coherent read. I assume I would have been similar to my spanish ward this weekend, who largely had no difficulty taking in my comment and a couple similar ones when it came up. 

 

 

 

with luv, 

BD 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2024 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is the problem, imo.  A simple reading of those verses (not referring to any others) wouldn’t need to have them search for a Lamanite in the troops anymore than one would need to search for a Native American in the Tabernacle Choir…they would have just had to ask the troop leaders who has a Lamanite in their troops and to go get him.  

Maybe they were the only ones who could pronounce “shibboleth” well enough to fool them.

[MustardSeed]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

So following the example of the BoM, it seems better to let go of the errors of their traditions for a greater light.

💯

The implications are challenging though- once we accept this truth, it lends me specifically to look for evidences of error presently being upheld as truth.  It requires that I think for myself and decide what is truth and not lean 100% on other human beings to decide that for me. Is there room for that in this church? Even that very question itself points to more “tradition versus truth.”

Edited February 21, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

That is the problem, imo.  A simple reading of those verses (not referring to any others) wouldn’t need to have them search for a Lamanite in the troops anymore than one would need to search for a Native American in the Tabernacle Choir…they would have just had to ask the troop leaders who has a Lamanite in their troops and to go get him.  

The scriptures, if they really are a message from God, should not be so difficult to understand.  For the Bible it seems that one needs a degree similar to what Dan McClellan has in order to understand the words.  It seems like a sloppy way for an all powerful supernatural being to get its message out.

Edited February 22, 2024 by Teancum