A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

[Finrock]

"God did not and never did condone the theories and doctrines that the Church taught about race before the 1978 revelation, even though leaders taught it and said that He did."

You speak so authoritatively here Finrock. Where do you get such authority to speak for God? How in the world can you make such a statement? Did God get you a revelation to share with us all that all teachings of the church leaders prior to 1978 about race and lineage was completely wrong? Why was the Priesthood not given to those of certain lineage prior to 1978? You need to think this through. Maybe you don't know as much as you think you do.

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form (https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the ... d?lang=eng).

-Finrock

Read the scripture I provided for you again Finrock. It isn't registering with you. TODAY the Lord has revealed that every worthy male member can hold the Priesthood. There is no disfavor with any lineage TODAY. That has not always been the case. Go clear back to the Old Testament. Ham? Canaanites? Lamanites? That is why we have living Prophets to receive the Lords will for each specific generation. What the Lord has revealed in times past may be revoked by Him for the benefit of future generations. Whatever the Lord wills at the time is what we run with. You can't say church leaders were wrong for their time unless you know that they received no revelation to say what they did for that period. Don't really know how you could possibly know that unless you are claiming revelation yourself authorized by the Lord.

This seems like your unique belief, which you are entitled to. The Church today said that the leaders in the past were wrong. I don't believe in relativism or in a changing God. I don't believe that it was OK to teach racist ideas in the past but since God changed His mind it then becomes not OK. God is governed by law as well. God can't commit sin and still remain God. You can argue against the current Church on this if you want to, but, in this case, the Church leaders of today have set the record straight. Leaders in the past taught racist doctrine, which was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

-Finrock

[larsenb]

. . . . . .This seems like your unique belief, which you are entitled to. The Church today said that the leaders in the past were wrong. I don't believe in relativism or in a changing God. I don't believe that it was OK to teach racist ideas in the past but since God changed His mind it then becomes not OK. God is governed by law as well. God can't commit sin and still remain God. You can argue against the current Church on this if you want to, but, in this case, the Church leaders of today have set the record straight. Leaders in the past taught racist doctrine, which was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

-Finrock

I remember reading what Hugh Nibley had to say on this, via his research. He identified many passages from ancient texts indicating that Jews/Arabs had a distinct bias against their darker skinned brethren. It had to do mainly with culture/lifestyle than what you would call racism.

As I recall, city-bred or more gentrified people from these groups thought darker skin meant and resulted from having to live a wilder and more rugged subsistence/nomadic lifestyle, where those caught up in or trapped by this life style were subject to the brunt of harsh weather conditions including a lot of sun. They also wouldn't have the water available to bathe frequently. The Book of Mormon describes such people many times as being dark, filthy and loathsome.

And it could be that generationally, darker skinned members of a family living that kind of lifestyle would be favored over time.

So the abhorrence felt by the 'upper crust' of darker-skinned people was more of a class thing; these people would be regarded as being on the lower end of the cultural totem pole.

You can see where this attitude was part and parcel part of the Lehi/Nephi family group. It was not racism per se. This makes a lot of sense to me.

And IWS is correct. It is silly to judge the thinking of past groups by our current and more refined sensibilities in terms of racial discrimination, as well as other things.

[yjacket]

This seems like your unique belief, which you are entitled to. The Church today said that the leaders in the past were wrong. I don't believe in relativism or in a changing God. I don't believe that it was OK to teach racist ideas in the past but since God changed His mind it then becomes not OK. God is governed by law as well. God can't commit sin and still remain God. You can argue against the current Church on this if you want to, but, in this case, the Church leaders of today have set the record straight. Leaders in the past taught racist doctrine, which was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

-Finrock

Maybe, maybe not. The thing that is interesting is that as soon as you open the door to saying past leaders were wrong on the issue, you open yourself up to being wrong on the issue today. How do you not know that in 50 years the culture will have changed and current leaders will condemn now leaders over something.

That's why it is rarely useful to delve into the past and say . .. previously leaders were wrong about xyz. Okay, great if they were wrong about xyz, why should I trust you and believe that you are so right about abc.

It's so, so easy to say, look at those fools in the past, look at their bigoted, horrible views, how wrong were they. Yet if someone says, hey you guys are wrong today ... burn him, he's a heretic. It just boils down to group think.

[Finrock]

This seems like your unique belief, which you are entitled to. The Church today said that the leaders in the past were wrong. I don't believe in relativism or in a changing God. I don't believe that it was OK to teach racist ideas in the past but since God changed His mind it then becomes not OK. God is governed by law as well. God can't commit sin and still remain God. You can argue against the current Church on this if you want to, but, in this case, the Church leaders of today have set the record straight. Leaders in the past taught racist doctrine, which was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

-Finrock

Maybe, maybe not. The thing that is interesting is that as soon as you open the door to saying past leaders were wrong on the issue, you open yourself up to being wrong on the issue today. How do you not know that in 50 years the culture will have changed and current leaders will condemn now leaders over something.

That's why it is rarely useful to delve into the past and say . .. previously leaders were wrong about xyz. Okay, great if they were wrong about xyz, why should I trust you and believe that you are so right about abc.

It's so, so easy to say, look at those fools in the past, look at their bigoted, horrible views, how wrong were they. Yet if someone says, hey you guys are wrong today ... burn him, he's a heretic. It just boils down to group think.

Good and Light are not relative. We can always find ways to support any belief scripturally, but, I think the Light of Christ is consistent. But, for this very purpose we should take as our ultimate guide the Holy Ghost. I believe and I've argued consistently that the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't change, principles don't change, but, our understanding and how we implement it does. Leaders can and do err. It is precisely for this purpose that we can't just trust everything that a leader says without question and without thought. Although I wasn't "delving" in to the past, these examples from the past do prove why receiving the Holy Ghost is so critical and important.

Nobody on this thread was going after the leaders or attempting to have them burned or call them heretics or condemn them to hell. Speaking factually about the past isn't an attack on anyone or anything. My points are in response to the OP. I've defending BY many times against those who would try to condemn him to hell. I think BY is a great man despite his error in this. We can identify error in thinking and in doctrine from the past without calling anyone a fool and while being understanding of their time and environment.

-Finrock

[yjacket]

This seems like your unique belief, which you are entitled to. The Church today said that the leaders in the past were wrong. I don't believe in relativism or in a changing God. I don't believe that it was OK to teach racist ideas in the past but since God changed His mind it then becomes not OK. God is governed by law as well. God can't commit sin and still remain God. You can argue against the current Church on this if you want to, but, in this case, the Church leaders of today have set the record straight. Leaders in the past taught racist doctrine, which was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

-Finrock

Maybe, maybe not. The thing that is interesting is that as soon as you open the door to saying past leaders were wrong on the issue, you open yourself up to being wrong on the issue today. How do you not know that in 50 years the culture will have changed and current leaders will condemn now leaders over something.

That's why it is rarely useful to delve into the past and say . .. previously leaders were wrong about xyz. Okay, great if they were wrong about xyz, why should I trust you and believe that you are so right about abc.

It's so, so easy to say, look at those fools in the past, look at their bigoted, horrible views, how wrong were they. Yet if someone says, hey you guys are wrong today ... burn him, he's a heretic. It just boils down to group think.

Good and Light are not relative. We can always find ways to support any belief scripturally, but, I think the Light of Christ is consistent. But, for this very purpose we should take as our ultimate guide the Holy Ghost. I believe and I've argued consistently that the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't change, principles don't change, but, our understanding and how we implement it does. Leaders can and do err. It is precisely for this purpose that we can't just trust everything that a leader says without question and without thought. Although I wasn't "delving" in to the past, these examples from the past do prove why receiving the Holy Ghost is so critical and important.

Nobody on this thread was going after the leaders or attempting to have them burned or call them heretics or condemn them to hell. Speaking factually about the past isn't an attack on anyone or anything. My points are in response to the OP. I've defending BY many times against those who would try to condemn him to hell. I think BY is a great man despite his error in this. We can identify error in thinking and in doctrine from the past without calling anyone a fool and while being understanding of their time and environment.

-Finrock

But you aren't speaking factually, you are speaking opinions. We don't know for a fact that they were wrong in the past, just as much as we don't know for a fact that the leaders are right today.

The sad thing is that as much as we like to say Good and Light are not relative (and I don't think they are), what we think is Good and Light is highly dependent upon what the current cultural/societal norms and bounds are.

Previously, the Church had a solid ideology of where actual races came from . . .today nope. Light has been taken away not revealed.
And no you can't find scripture to justify any belief. That is a lie.

[Finrock]

This seems like your unique belief, which you are entitled to. The Church today said that the leaders in the past were wrong. I don't believe in relativism or in a changing God. I don't believe that it was OK to teach racist ideas in the past but since God changed His mind it then becomes not OK. God is governed by law as well. God can't commit sin and still remain God. You can argue against the current Church on this if you want to, but, in this case, the Church leaders of today have set the record straight. Leaders in the past taught racist doctrine, which was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

-Finrock

Maybe, maybe not. The thing that is interesting is that as soon as you open the door to saying past leaders were wrong on the issue, you open yourself up to being wrong on the issue today. How do you not know that in 50 years the culture will have changed and current leaders will condemn now leaders over something.

That's why it is rarely useful to delve into the past and say . .. previously leaders were wrong about xyz. Okay, great if they were wrong about xyz, why should I trust you and believe that you are so right about abc.

It's so, so easy to say, look at those fools in the past, look at their bigoted, horrible views, how wrong were they. Yet if someone says, hey you guys are wrong today ... burn him, he's a heretic. It just boils down to group think.

Good and Light are not relative. We can always find ways to support any belief scripturally, but, I think the Light of Christ is consistent. But, for this very purpose we should take as our ultimate guide the Holy Ghost. I believe and I've argued consistently that the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't change, principles don't change, but, our understanding and how we implement it does. Leaders can and do err. It is precisely for this purpose that we can't just trust everything that a leader says without question and without thought. Although I wasn't "delving" in to the past, these examples from the past do prove why receiving the Holy Ghost is so critical and important.

Nobody on this thread was going after the leaders or attempting to have them burned or call them heretics or condemn them to hell. Speaking factually about the past isn't an attack on anyone or anything. My points are in response to the OP. I've defending BY many times against those who would try to condemn him to hell. I think BY is a great man despite his error in this. We can identify error in thinking and in doctrine from the past without calling anyone a fool and while being understanding of their time and environment.

-Finrock

But you aren't speaking factually, you are speaking opinions. We don't know for a fact that they were wrong in the past, just as much as we don't know for a fact that the leaders are right today.

The sad thing is that as much as we like to say Good and Light are not relative (and I don't think they are), what we think is Good and Light is highly dependent upon what the current cultural/societal norms and bounds are.

Previously, the Church had a solid ideology of where actual races came from . . .today nope. Light has been taken away not revealed.
And no you can't find scripture to justify any belief. That is a lie.

The "facts" I was referring to were the racist teachings of the past. It is a fact that leaders of the Church taught that one race was inferior to another race. These are historical facts.

As far as the question of morality. I know that one race is not inferior to another race, therefore I know that teaching that one race is inferior to another race, is morally wrong. You may not recognize that, but I do.

And, yes, people have used the scriptures to justify murder, bigotry, abuse, coercion, lying, stealing, genocide, etc. That isn't a lie. These are also facts. They may not have been justified in doing so, but, they have done it and they continue to do it.

You are entitled to your view as far as how much light has been gained or lost. Its clear to me that teaching that the races are all alike unto God is of greater light than teaching that not all races are alike unto God because one race is inferior to another race.

-Finrock

[Zathura]

You know rather than having to prove anything, I think you should ask first why Finrock always thinks he has to lash out at the church? You should question his motives first before thinking you have to prove or unprove anything. We had a perfectly good inspirational post based based on prayer and scripture study and he completely turned it into a racism post while he laughs at people. Go back to the original post, there was nothing about anything bad about anyone and he turned it into somehow turning everyone thinking they had to either disavow Brigham Young or defend him. That's not what this site is for.

It is a Constitutional principle to be innocent until proven guilty as well. We shouldn't have to have this turned upside down just to please him.

One point to consider, if you had a good church leader born in an era that had slavery you wouldn't be able to tell if the audience he's speaking to is still trying to overcome slavery or he himself was. I know for a fact if a speaker's audience accepted slavery and he's talking to them people years down the road in a language they understand then you aren't going to understand the rhetoric. This has come up before. And if you were reading Ammon's comments with Lamoni in Nephite times you might be stirred up by that thinking he was a traitor to the Nephites by the same principle or an reverse racism issue.

On another thread also I had brought up many times that Brigham Young made a lot of efforts to stop the indian slave trade. And he and Joseph Smith tried have written accounts of freeing slaves. Look it up.

“lash out” ........ Finrock literally quotes the actual church disavowing previous teaching about race , clarifying that current church leaders condem past racism. It is easily inferred that the church leaders understands that past teachings were racist. The fact that members still try defend statements on race that the church has literally disavowed blows my mind.

The connections the OP is attempting to make don’t make any sense at all.

Church Leaders are men, they have weaknesses. some were racist, some were not. Today the church acknowledges it and condemns it. they straight up disavow all former teachings on race, the exact ones you are defending and saying are not actually racist..

stop, take a breath, let it go. Finrock loves the gospel and defends church leaders when feels that it’s necessary. Let’s love our neighbors.

let’s help and love each other, let’s discuss the doctrine of Christ. let’s stop wasting time on tenets and worthless topics.


31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

let us help our brothers and sister come into Christ that they can feel his love and be born of him, that they can be found on his right side and reap the blessings that come of being born of God. let’s listen to Alma and look at ourselves .

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

[Jamescm]

I admit, I began to gloss over the argument, but I thought it interesting when the ban on preaching to indigenous Americans was questioned. I actually read about it for the first time just yesterday when studying the Doctrine and Covenants on lds.org, it was an article on the side around section 21.