A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by gardener4life »

I felt like I should post this. I ran into this about a week ago in scripture study. I take no credit for it, others put it up initially and it's wonderful and the Spirit was guiding them. I just collected the clues together as a whole explanation and narrative.

But I would have every member in the church know of it. It's a parable of how the adversary attacks the Church.

The church is organized on April 6, 1830.

in September 1830, the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith called Oliver Cowdery to head the first official mission of the church to the Lamanites. It's also the first 'official mission' on record. (What's also interesting is that the missions to Europe and the British Isles weren't until much later!) You can find references to this in D&C Section 28, 30, and 32. Specific verses to keep in mind are D&C 30:5,6, and also 28:8-10. Here is another link that's also good;

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrin ... n?lang=eng

OK, so why is this so important and why should everyone know this?

The critics and anti-Mormons have always attacked the church with the racism weapon. And nobody ever points out the introduction page of the Book of Mormon says;

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

So as an afterthought Jew and Gentile are added.

The Lord knew the agents of the adversary would attack the church with racism arrows. It was foresight from the very beginning that he would know how to counter this and put that in there. This is so incredibly wonderful. Not only does the title page prove and show that the racism agenda is false and a lie. But the Lord also shows love for those that aren't always the same skin color as the leaders. And to prove he loves everyone, just as much as every other child of God the very first mission is a mission to the Lamanites.

What happens here is interesting. The first missionaries were going to have some success with the Lamanites and then what happens...the government and anti's stopped them from teaching the Lamanites and hedged up the way. This is also a parable and was always meant to be shown to every member on why some countries wouldn't open up right away. Then we get accused of racism lies, when all along we'd wanted and tried to help those that don't quite look like us, but had the way hedged up from the beginning. And if we'd broken rules then we would have been persecuted again, had our lands and churches seized, and attacked, etc.

It is so important that we see that this happening in the first years of the church is a parable of things happening to try to hedge up the way of the church's growth. They don't let us teach those of other skin colors. Then they accuse racism.

That's why I wish everyone would know this. It's proof that the the racism attacks are crap and lies. It's always been like this but people didn't really I think convey it well or the wording, or they'd listen to some other guy wanting to prove he was smarter and counter it. And we've all heard this racism stuff. My dad on his mission to Brazil was right before the Official Declaration #2 occurred by only a couple years. It was very hard for them to know what to say to people because the time hadn't come yet for the priesthood to open up to everyone; so they couldn't teach everyone yet. But they had to trust that the Lord had a purpose in waiting.

Incidentally this is also why official declaration #2 is in the D&C next to official Declaration #1. IF people had prayerfully and carefully read the wording in OD#1, they would have realized that the consequences outline in OD#1 would have had those same things happen to us if we'd broken the rules about teaching in countries before it was time for them to open up. By this I mean the lands and churches seized and the leaders locked up.
'
If we can explain it this way...and this is true, absolutely true then I think many would soften their hearts towards us and see us for how we wanted to be all along with them; friends and neighbors.

First misson to leave to go to England; left Kirtland in 1837

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

gardener4life wrote: February 16th, 2018, 10:52 pm Incidentally this is also why official declaration #2 is in the D&C next to official Declaration #1. IF people had prayerfully and carefully read the wording in OD#1, they would have realized that the consequences outline in OD#1 would have had those same things happen to us if we'd broken the rules about teaching in countries before it was time for them to open up. By this I mean the lands and churches seized and the leaders locked up.
You're going to have to provide some historical data the demonstrates your claim that the U.S. government made it illegal for the Church to teach the "Lamanites". Also, the isse wasn't about teaching in countries that didn't permit it. The issue was that people of African decent weren't allowed to receive the priesthood. No government or anti-Mormon placed this policy upon us. This was placed upon us ourselves. At any time the Church could have decided to reverse course and had they done so there would have been no threat of them having their property seized, etc.

In your post you are conflating things.

-Finrock

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by gardener4life »

No I don't Finrock. Everyone knows you are only here to cause trouble.

I have already shown enough for someone to confirm it with prayer. All that really counts is prayer and the Spirit and asking God in faith. God hearing their prayers and answering them in their need and times of trouble, and when they pray over their flocks, fields, lands, families, and work, and remembering him in all things is all the proof they need.

Your argument is to have them sweep all that aside for a legal document based on bribery of lawyers, who only do anything for money.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, with real intent; and it shall be given him.

In fact someone could actually do a math sample of the % of things you say to attack anything positive about the church and use that as proof that the opposite of whatever you say is usually true. Anyone on this site knows you can click on someone's name and actually look at their posting history to see if they do anything at all positive or good. If someone would look at your posting history they would see that you only intend to do harm here and that you always surface to do what you do. I only regret that you were the first one to reply to my post.

You have also gotten the law wrong and put the Constitution aside. BY what you just said you have asked that we consider someone guilty until proven innocent. You want someone to prove they are innocent instead of prove that they are guilty. You also did that the last time I posted something interesting, with the same argument of guilty until proven innocent. You are also saying I have to have some kind of evidence to have free speech allowed, and implying that only someone with a connection to something legal gets to have free speech.

Alma 2:28 Nevertheless, the Nephites being strengthened by the hand of the Lord, having prayed mightily to him that he would deliver them out of the hands of their enemies, therefore the Lord did hear their cries, and did strengthen them...
Psalm 145:19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
Exodus 3:7 And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

But I should thank you instead. Because of what you did, I was able to post these cool scriptures about the Lord hearing the prayers of the faithful. Those of us that love the scriptures and things of Christ are happy to always see anything written about him hearing our prayers.
2 Chronicles 6:35 Then hear thou from the heavens their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.
1 Kings 8:45 Then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

gardener4life wrote: February 17th, 2018, 12:51 am No I don't Finrock. Everyone knows you are only here to cause trouble.

I have already shown enough for someone to confirm it with prayer. All that really counts is prayer and the Spirit and asking God in faith. God hearing their prayers and answering them in their need and times of trouble, and when they pray over their flocks, fields, lands, families, and work, and remembering him in all things is all the proof they need.

Your argument is to have them sweep all that aside for a legal document based on bribery of lawyers, who only do anything for money.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, with real intent; and it shall be given him.

In fact someone could actually do a math sample of the % of things you say to attack anything positive about the church and use that as proof that the opposite of whatever you say is usually true. Anyone on this site knows you can click on someone's name and actually look at their posting history to see if they do anything at all positive or good. If someone would look at your posting history they would see that you only intend to do harm here and that you always surface to do what you do. I only regret that you were the first one to reply to my post.

You have also gotten the law wrong and put the Constitution aside. BY what you just said you have asked that we consider someone guilty until proven innocent. You want someone to prove they are innocent instead of prove that they are guilty. You also did that the last time I posted something interesting, with the same argument of guilty until proven innocent.

Alma 2:28 Nevertheless, the Nephites being strengthened by the hand of the Lord, having prayed mightily to him that he would deliver them out of the hands of their enemies, therefore the Lord did hear their cries, and did strengthen them...
Psalm 145:19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
Exodus 3:7 And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

But I should thank you instead. Because of what you did, I was able to post these cool scriptures about the Lord hearing the prayers of the faithful. Those of us that love the scriptures and things of Christ are happy to always see anything written about him hearing our prayers.
2 Chronicles 6:35 Then hear thou from the heavens their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.
1 Kings 8:45 Then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.
Why are you talking about me personally instead of addressing the content of my posts?

Its unethical and immoral to simply assert things about others without providing any good reasons or evidence for what you are saying. Also, when you make claims in your posts, it doesn't magically become true because you believe it and because you said so. We aren't talking about opinions here, but you are making claims about historical facts. If the Church was going to have its assets seized if it didn't stop teaching to the "Lamanites", there would be historical data to back that up.

So, please show me where I've asked that "we consider someone guilty until proven innocent". If you won't or you cannot, please stop making claims about me that are false. That's dishonest.

I've asked you to not just assert things, but to back up your assertions with evidence/proof/data. Please stop talking about me personally. Please do back up your assertions and your accusations with facts.
In fact someone could actually do a math sample of the % of things you say to attack anything positive about the church and use that as proof that the opposite of whatever you say is usually true. Anyone on this site knows you can click on someone's name and actually look at their posting history to see if they do anything at all positive or good. If someone would look at your posting history they would see that you only intend to do harm here and that you always surface to do what you do. I only regret that you were the first one to reply to my post.
Are you being serious here? A math sample of the % of things I say to attack anything positive about the church and this "math sample" then proves that the opposite of whatever I say is usually true? What? Also, please stop attacking me personally.

I am a good man and I intend to do good. I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ and I have no desire to harm or to injure anyone. Just because I challenge your ideas and because I have pointed out logical inconsistencies and fallacious reasoning in your posts does not mean that I'm intent on doing harm or that I'm here to cause trouble. You have judged me incorrectly. Please stop making assumptions about me and if you disagree with something that I say, instead of trying to attack me personally, please just provide your counter argument or demonstrate the reasons why my position is wrong and your position is right.

-Finrock

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Mark »

Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock

You love to throw around accusatory and harsh judgments claiming rascist against early church leaders like Brigham Young and others who lived in a different era and time. You talk as though are the definitive source of truth and virtue. Would you have labeled Mormon and Nephi rascist as well?

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9832

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by JohnnyL »

Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock
It would be nice for both of you to provide sources, I think.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

JohnnyL wrote: February 17th, 2018, 11:00 am
Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock
It would be nice for both of you to provide sources, I think.
Wikipedia wrote:Orson Pratt supported it.[39] Formally, this justification appeared as early as 1908 in a Liahona magazine article.[10]:56 Joseph Fielding Smith supported the idea in his 1931 book The Way to Perfection, stating that the priesthood restriction on black was a "punishment" for actions in the pre-existence.[40] In a letter in 1947, the First Presidency wrote in a letter to Lowry Nelson that blacks were not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel, and referenced the "revelations [...] on the preexistence" as a justification.
All of these references are sourced on the Wikipedia site.
Wikipedia wrote:The LDS church also used this explanation in their 1949 statement explicitly barring blacks from holding the priesthood.[10]:66 An address by Mark E. Peterson was widely circulated by BYU religion faculty in the 1950s and 60s and used the "less valiant in the pre-existence" explanation to justify segregation, a view which Lowell Bennion and Kendall White, among other members, heavily criticized.[10]:69 The apostle Joseph Fielding Smith also taught that black people were less faithful in the preexistence.[46][47] A 1959 report by US Commission found that the Mormon church in Utah generally taught that non-whites had inferior performance in the pre-earth life.[48]
All of these references are sourced.

Then, the teachings that contradict the racist views referenced above:
Wikipedia wrote:After the priesthood ban ended in 1978, church leaders refuted the idea that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence. In a 1978 interview with Time Magazine, President Spencer W. Kimball stated that the LDS Church no longer held to the theory that those of African descent were any less valiant in the pre-earth life.[10]:134 Jeffrey R. Holland in a 2006 interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons stated that inaccurate racial "folklore" was invented to justify the priesthood ban, and that reasons for the previous ban are unknown.[10]:134[49][50]:60 The LDS Church explicitly denounced any justification for the priesthood restriction based in views on events in the pre-mortal life in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay published in 2013.[14]
Quotes from Brigham Young:
You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham (Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56).
The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed ( Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS historical department).
Joseph Fielding Smith:
Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101, 1935).
There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66).
Modern Church Leader Denounce Past Racist Teachings of Leaders:
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).
That previous leaders believe and taught in racist views is a historical fact. That the Church today denounces the teachings of those leaders is another historical fact.

-Finrock

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

Mark wrote: February 17th, 2018, 6:49 am
Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock

You love to throw around accusatory and harsh judgments claiming rascist against early church leaders like Brigham Young and others who lived in a different era and time. You talk as though are the definitive source of truth and virtue. Would you have labeled Mormon and Nephi rascist as well?

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
Mark,

Were you going to address the content of my post, or just pretend to know what I love to do? I'm speaking of historical facts. I'm identifying facts, not condemning individuals. I stand with modern Church leaders who denounced the racist views of past church leaders. See the article "Race and Priesthood".

-Finrock

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9832

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by JohnnyL »

Finrock wrote: February 17th, 2018, 11:23 am
JohnnyL wrote: February 17th, 2018, 11:00 am
Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock
It would be nice for both of you to provide sources, I think.
Wikipedia wrote:Orson Pratt supported it.[39] Formally, this justification appeared as early as 1908 in a Liahona magazine article.[10]:56 Joseph Fielding Smith supported the idea in his 1931 book The Way to Perfection, stating that the priesthood restriction on black was a "punishment" for actions in the pre-existence.[40] In a letter in 1947, the First Presidency wrote in a letter to Lowry Nelson that blacks were not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel, and referenced the "revelations [...] on the preexistence" as a justification.
All of these references are sourced on the Wikipedia site.
Wikipedia wrote:The LDS church also used this explanation in their 1949 statement explicitly barring blacks from holding the priesthood.[10]:66 An address by Mark E. Peterson was widely circulated by BYU religion faculty in the 1950s and 60s and used the "less valiant in the pre-existence" explanation to justify segregation, a view which Lowell Bennion and Kendall White, among other members, heavily criticized.[10]:69 The apostle Joseph Fielding Smith also taught that black people were less faithful in the preexistence.[46][47] A 1959 report by US Commission found that the Mormon church in Utah generally taught that non-whites had inferior performance in the pre-earth life.[48]
All of these references are sourced.

Then, the teachings that contradict the racist views referenced above:
Wikipedia wrote:After the priesthood ban ended in 1978, church leaders refuted the idea that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence. In a 1978 interview with Time Magazine, President Spencer W. Kimball stated that the LDS Church no longer held to the theory that those of African descent were any less valiant in the pre-earth life.[10]:134 Jeffrey R. Holland in a 2006 interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons stated that inaccurate racial "folklore" was invented to justify the priesthood ban, and that reasons for the previous ban are unknown.[10]:134[49][50]:60 The LDS Church explicitly denounced any justification for the priesthood restriction based in views on events in the pre-mortal life in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay published in 2013.[14]
Quotes from Brigham Young:
You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham (Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56).
The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed ( Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS historical department).
Joseph Fielding Smith:
Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101, 1935).
There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66).
Modern Church Leader Denounce Past Racist Teachings of Leaders:
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).
That previous leaders believe and taught in racist views is a historical fact. That the Church today denounces the teachings of those leaders is another historical fact.

-Finrock
Good, now something to work with, right? (Which I'm going to have to do later, lol.)

Before starting, what is YOUR definition of racism?

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

JohnnyL wrote: February 17th, 2018, 11:29 am
Finrock wrote: February 17th, 2018, 11:23 am
JohnnyL wrote: February 17th, 2018, 11:00 am
Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock
It would be nice for both of you to provide sources, I think.
Wikipedia wrote:Orson Pratt supported it.[39] Formally, this justification appeared as early as 1908 in a Liahona magazine article.[10]:56 Joseph Fielding Smith supported the idea in his 1931 book The Way to Perfection, stating that the priesthood restriction on black was a "punishment" for actions in the pre-existence.[40] In a letter in 1947, the First Presidency wrote in a letter to Lowry Nelson that blacks were not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel, and referenced the "revelations [...] on the preexistence" as a justification.
All of these references are sourced on the Wikipedia site.
Wikipedia wrote:The LDS church also used this explanation in their 1949 statement explicitly barring blacks from holding the priesthood.[10]:66 An address by Mark E. Peterson was widely circulated by BYU religion faculty in the 1950s and 60s and used the "less valiant in the pre-existence" explanation to justify segregation, a view which Lowell Bennion and Kendall White, among other members, heavily criticized.[10]:69 The apostle Joseph Fielding Smith also taught that black people were less faithful in the preexistence.[46][47] A 1959 report by US Commission found that the Mormon church in Utah generally taught that non-whites had inferior performance in the pre-earth life.[48]
All of these references are sourced.

Then, the teachings that contradict the racist views referenced above:
Wikipedia wrote:After the priesthood ban ended in 1978, church leaders refuted the idea that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence. In a 1978 interview with Time Magazine, President Spencer W. Kimball stated that the LDS Church no longer held to the theory that those of African descent were any less valiant in the pre-earth life.[10]:134 Jeffrey R. Holland in a 2006 interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons stated that inaccurate racial "folklore" was invented to justify the priesthood ban, and that reasons for the previous ban are unknown.[10]:134[49][50]:60 The LDS Church explicitly denounced any justification for the priesthood restriction based in views on events in the pre-mortal life in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay published in 2013.[14]
Quotes from Brigham Young:
You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham (Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56).
The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed ( Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS historical department).
Joseph Fielding Smith:
Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101, 1935).
There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66).
Modern Church Leader Denounce Past Racist Teachings of Leaders:
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).
That previous leaders believe and taught in racist views is a historical fact. That the Church today denounces the teachings of those leaders is another historical fact.

-Finrock
Good, now something to work with, right? (Which I'm going to have to do later, lol.)

Before starting, what is YOUR definition of racism?
Believing that one race is superior to another race. I don't mean having a preference for your own race, but I mean the belief that one actually thinks/believes that a person who is dark skinned is inferior to a person with light skin. This would include ideas that mixing of the races is a "sin" and/or gross. To be clear, I don't mean the idea that there are challenges in mix raced relationships, but that its actually a sin. Or, judging a person's righteousness or goodness on the merits of their skin color alone. So, believing that a dark skinned person is not as righteous as a light skinned person. Believing, for instance, that a dark skinned person "deserves" to be a slave and that they "ought" to be the subjects of light skinned people. Just to clarify, a person of any race could have these beliefs. It isn't just light skinned people believing dark skinned people are inferior. Its just as racist if a dark skinned person thinks a light skinned person is inferior. So, racism isn't limited to just one race. In other words my definitions and examples would apply to anyone, regardless of their race.

-Finrock

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by larsenb »

Mark wrote: February 17th, 2018, 6:49 am
Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock

You love to throw around accusatory and harsh judgments claiming rascist against early church leaders like Brigham Young and others who lived in a different era and time. You talk as though are the definitive source of truth and virtue. Would you have labeled Mormon and Nephi rascist as well?

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
I've always been impressed with this scripture from the Book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi:

2 Nephi 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ball to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Which could also be an example of the Lord's foreknowledge of the accusation of racism that would be leveled at his Church in the Last Days.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

larsenb wrote: February 17th, 2018, 12:53 pm
Mark wrote: February 17th, 2018, 6:49 am
Finrock wrote: February 16th, 2018, 11:52 pm Some Mormons are racist, some aren't. Some leaders have been racist, and some haven't. The Church is made up of fallible men and women. There is good and bad in the Church.

By the way, the Book of Mormon was abridged by Mormon. He put that introduction in there, not the Church. Mormon wasn't a racist. Also, I don't think that anybody (at least that I know of) thinks that God is a racist. Of course God loves everyone. So, the issue hasn't been about what Mormon thought or what God thinks, but the issue has been about what some Church members and Church leaders have thought. So, because Mormon wasn't a racist it doesn't mean that racism hasn't existed in the Church. To say that it hasn't or that it won't is the part that is "crap and lies". =) That introduction doesn't counter the claims of the critics, but it does counter the claims of any racist that may exist within our ranks. It does show that racist policies and doctrines taught in the Church by some leaders, were misguided and wrong.

-Finrock

You love to throw around accusatory and harsh judgments claiming rascist against early church leaders like Brigham Young and others who lived in a different era and time. You talk as though are the definitive source of truth and virtue. Would you have labeled Mormon and Nephi rascist as well?

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
I've always been impressed with this scripture from the Book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi:

2 Nephi 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ball to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Which could also be an example of the Lord's foreknowledge of the accusation of racism that would be leveled at his Church in the Last Days.
Yeah, God loves all of His children equally and all are alike unto God. Unfortunately, not everyone in the Church either believes this or has believed this, not even leaders. I don't think that scripture does anything to address the issues of racism that has existed at various times in the Church. The Church and God are not the same entity. What that scripture doesn't do is speak to the fact that many Church leaders in the past had racist views, which they taught over the pulpit, in publications, etc., to members of the Church. That is why the modern Church disavowed these ideas:
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).
If past Church leaders hadn't made these statements or taught racist views, then the modern Church would have no need to disavow those views.

-Finrock

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by gardener4life »

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.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

gardener4life wrote: February 17th, 2018, 2:09 pm 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.
You made statements in the OP that governments prevented the Church from teaching the "Lamanites" or they would have their property seized, etc. I asked you to provide the reference. That seems like made up history to me. Also, what you said in the OP doesn't hold water.

I'd rather that we defend the Church with ideas and facts that are real. I think its better to be honest about our past, acknowledge things that was taught wrong in the Church, and then move forward. Pretending or trying to reshape history or acting like nothing wrong has ever been done by the Church and its leaders doesn't help defend the Church and it isn't a positive mark on the Church. I think doing such things is more harmful to the Church than just being honest and factual about what really has happened. Speaking facts doesn't constitute an attack on anyone. I understand that some people feel that this is the case, but, it isn't in reality. I am secure enough in being a Mormon and in my Mormon beliefs and views that I can acknowledge the good and the bad. That our history has some blemishes doesn't phase me one bit. Neither does it cause me to discount all of the good and the truths that BY and other Church leaders taught in addition to their racist views.

I'm addressing the content of your post and you are trying to attack me personally because I spoke out against ideas that you shared. Even though its irrelevant, the fact is that you keep saying things about me that are false. I haven't lashed out, ever, at the Church. I haven't laughed at anyone. I have laughed at some of the nonsensical or untrue ideas that have been expressed, but I haven't laughed at any person. Like I said before, regardless of what you think, I'm a good man, with good intent, who is a disciple of Jesus Christ. I love Him, His gospel, and I love being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My motives are to deal with things as they are, to be fairminded, to be honest, to promote all Good things, etc.

Now, can you please stop attacking me personally and either address the content of my post or not? If you still have some personal problem with me, you can always PM or start a thread if you like where you can tell me and the whole forum how lousy of a person you think I am, or whatever you feel like you need to say. I'm interested in talking about the content, the ideas, and the thoughts that are being expressed here.

Thank you.

-Finrock

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by iWriteStuff »

Would I be out of line if I pointed out that we are judging leaders from the 19th century by standards from the 21st century?

Maybe BY had a different view of the eternal heritage of blacks than modern leaders do. Does that mean he was a racist? Pretty sure we don't defend his stance on blacks, but that doesn't mean he was a racist - merely a product of his time. By 22nd century standards we're probably all going to be seen as sexists and homophobes or some other -ist or -phobe. Lord knows the march of time isn't kind to the social stances of previous generations. We will be no different, if there's a culture left to judge us.

Ultimately, we are rough stones rolling and God will sort out our faulty thinking at some future point.


Edit: I'd love to hear social commentary from Jeremiah/Isaiah/Ezekiel on the Egyptians or the northern tribes of Israel some day. Were they perfect in all their views? Did they ever have any prejudices they needed to work out? I don't doubt but that we will some day discover that all prophets are imperfect men doing the best they can with the light and knowledge they possess.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

iWriteStuff wrote: February 17th, 2018, 5:02 pm Would I be out of line if I pointed out that we are judging leaders from the 19th century by standards from the 21st century?

Maybe BY had a different view of the eternal heritage of blacks than modern leaders do. Does that mean he was a racist? Pretty sure we don't defend his stance on blacks, but that doesn't mean he was a racist - merely a product of his time. By 22nd century standards we're probably all going to be seen as sexists and homophobes or some other -ist or -phobe. Lord knows the march of time isn't kind to the social stances of previous generations. We will be no different, if there's a culture left to judge us.

Ultimately, we are rough stones rolling and God will sort out our faulty thinking at some future point.


Edit: I'd love to hear social commentary from Jeremiah/Isaiah/Ezekiel on the Egyptians or the northern tribes of Israel some day. Were they perfect in all their views? Did they ever have any prejudices they needed to work out? I don't doubt but that we will some day discover that all prophets are imperfect men doing the best they can with the light and knowledge they possess.
Btw, I love Brigham Young. I think he was/is a good man. Above and beyond he taught ideas that were of Christ and were good. But, we all err. His view and his teachings of people of African descent were racist. It just doesn't make sense to me to pretend that something isn't, when it is. These views were racist. They were in error. We can't truthfully say that the Church never had racist views or that the Church leaders never taught racist doctrine. There is a reason why the modern Church said this:
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).
The Church today is trying to set the record straight. This statement quoted above implies exactly what I have been saying in this thread. My position is in line and the same as that of the Church today. 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. I don't see what the big deal is in talking about facts as they are. To me being honest about things, even negative things, is a good thing. Being able to say, "Yeah, our leaders did have and teach some racist ideas in the past, but we understand that they were wrong and the Church today completely condemns racism in any form" paints the Church and its members in a very good light. It shows humility, it shows an ability to acknowledge falsehoods, it shows an ability to learn from mistakes and move forward.

There are some things in my past which are very unsavory, to say the least. Someone could bring them up and point them out and say, didn't you do so and so at one point? Instead of becoming all defensive, worried, scared, or upset, I can honestly say, "Yeah, that is true, I did do so and so, but, I've repented and I don't do or believe in those things any more. Look at my life since then as evidence if you don't believe me. In any case, I know where I stand with God and I'm pleased and at peace."

-Finrock

simpleton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3074

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by simpleton »

Finrock wrote: February 17th, 2018, 5:29 pm
iWriteStuff wrote: February 17th, 2018, 5:02 pm Would I be out of line if I pointed out that we are judging leaders from the 19th century by standards from the 21st century?

Maybe BY had a different view of the eternal heritage of blacks than modern leaders do. Does that mean he was a racist? Pretty sure we don't defend his stance on blacks, but that doesn't mean he was a racist - merely a product of his time. By 22nd century standards we're probably all going to be seen as sexists and homophobes or some other -ist or -phobe. Lord knows the march of time isn't kind to the social stances of previous generations. We will be no different, if there's a culture left to judge us.

Ultimately, we are rough stones rolling and God will sort out our faulty thinking at some future point.


Edit: I'd love to hear social commentary from Jeremiah/Isaiah/Ezekiel on the Egyptians or the northern tribes of Israel some day. Were they perfect in all their views? Did they ever have any prejudices they needed to work out? I don't doubt but that we will some day discover that all prophets are imperfect men doing the best they can with the light and knowledge they possess.
Btw, I love Brigham Young. I think he was/is a good man. Above and beyond he taught ideas that were of Christ and were good. But, we all err. His view and his teachings of people of African descent were racist. It just doesn't make sense to me to pretend that something isn't, when it is. These views were racist. They were in error. We can't truthfully say that the Church never had racist views or that the Church leaders never taught racist doctrine. There is a reason why the modern Church said this:
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).
The Church today is trying to set the record straight. This statement quoted above implies exactly what I have been saying in this thread. My position is in line and the same as that of the Church today. 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. I don't see what the big deal is in talking about facts as they are. To me being honest about things, even negative things, is a good thing. Being able to say, "Yeah, our leaders did have and teach some racist ideas in the past, but we understand that they were wrong and the Church today completely condemns racism in any form" paints the Church and its members in a very good light. It shows humility, it shows an ability to acknowledge falsehoods, it shows an ability to learn from mistakes and move forward.

There are some things in my past which are very unsavory, to say the least. Someone could bring them up and point them out and say, didn't you do so and so at one point? Instead of becoming all defensive, worried, scared, or upset, I can honestly say, "Yeah, that is true, I did do so and so, but, I've repented and I don't do or believe in those things any more. Look at my life since then as evidence if you don't believe me. In any case, I know where I stand with God and I'm pleased and at peace."

-Finrock
The church can disavow all it wants to in regards to "racism" but scriptural facts or rather the written word that we have in the bible and also the book of mormon most definitely speaks about " white" "black" and "dark" skin. We can also talk about how stupid and "racist" Joseph and Brigham and followers were and that they were " in the dark" because of the "slavery" times they were in. Joseph and Brigham were much more inline and in tune and in harmony with the book of Mormon and the bible than we are today. I think in regards to this "politically correct" mentality we are in today is a digression further from the truth. Rather than quoted above "acknowledged falsehoods" how do you know that we are not under " unacknowledged falsehoods". It cannot be refuted that all through the book of Mormon that for example the term used " a dark and a loathsome and a filthy people" was just strictly a spiritual condition. God very clearly cursed them with a " dark" skin, As a distinguishable mark to keep his people from mixing with them. And later on removed that " dark" skin color when they repented and then they became " white and delightsome" again later on.
And as far as the " black" skin in the bible, it is plainly a curse from God and no amount of " political correctness" will change that.( I am sure I shall be cursed with the wrath of the masses, but it mattereth not.) But I cannot help what is plainly written by the keepers of the sacred records. I do not think Brigham was in error or as some or most have declared him to be " under the influences of his day". Joseph and Brigham had more light IMO than the vast majority of us today combined. But then again I think we have digressed spiritually since then.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

simpleton wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:44 pm
Finrock wrote: February 17th, 2018, 5:29 pm
iWriteStuff wrote: February 17th, 2018, 5:02 pm Would I be out of line if I pointed out that we are judging leaders from the 19th century by standards from the 21st century?

Maybe BY had a different view of the eternal heritage of blacks than modern leaders do. Does that mean he was a racist? Pretty sure we don't defend his stance on blacks, but that doesn't mean he was a racist - merely a product of his time. By 22nd century standards we're probably all going to be seen as sexists and homophobes or some other -ist or -phobe. Lord knows the march of time isn't kind to the social stances of previous generations. We will be no different, if there's a culture left to judge us.

Ultimately, we are rough stones rolling and God will sort out our faulty thinking at some future point.


Edit: I'd love to hear social commentary from Jeremiah/Isaiah/Ezekiel on the Egyptians or the northern tribes of Israel some day. Were they perfect in all their views? Did they ever have any prejudices they needed to work out? I don't doubt but that we will some day discover that all prophets are imperfect men doing the best they can with the light and knowledge they possess.
Btw, I love Brigham Young. I think he was/is a good man. Above and beyond he taught ideas that were of Christ and were good. But, we all err. His view and his teachings of people of African descent were racist. It just doesn't make sense to me to pretend that something isn't, when it is. These views were racist. They were in error. We can't truthfully say that the Church never had racist views or that the Church leaders never taught racist doctrine. There is a reason why the modern Church said this:
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).
The Church today is trying to set the record straight. This statement quoted above implies exactly what I have been saying in this thread. My position is in line and the same as that of the Church today. 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. I don't see what the big deal is in talking about facts as they are. To me being honest about things, even negative things, is a good thing. Being able to say, "Yeah, our leaders did have and teach some racist ideas in the past, but we understand that they were wrong and the Church today completely condemns racism in any form" paints the Church and its members in a very good light. It shows humility, it shows an ability to acknowledge falsehoods, it shows an ability to learn from mistakes and move forward.

There are some things in my past which are very unsavory, to say the least. Someone could bring them up and point them out and say, didn't you do so and so at one point? Instead of becoming all defensive, worried, scared, or upset, I can honestly say, "Yeah, that is true, I did do so and so, but, I've repented and I don't do or believe in those things any more. Look at my life since then as evidence if you don't believe me. In any case, I know where I stand with God and I'm pleased and at peace."

-Finrock
The church can disavow all it wants to in regards to "racism" but scriptural facts or rather the written word that we have in the bible and also the book of mormon most definitely speaks about " white" "black" and "dark" skin. We can also talk about how stupid and "racist" Joseph and Brigham and followers were and that they were " in the dark" because of the "slavery" times they were in. Joseph and Brigham were much more inline and in tune and in harmony with the book of Mormon and the bible than we are today. I think in regards to this "politically correct" mentality we are in today is a digression further from the truth. Rather than quoted above "acknowledged falsehoods" how do you know that we are not under " unacknowledged falsehoods". It cannot be refuted that all through the book of Mormon that for example the term used " a dark and a loathsome and a filthy people" was just strictly a spiritual condition. God very clearly cursed them with a " dark" skin, As a distinguishable mark to keep his people from mixing with them. And later on removed that " dark" skin color when they repented and then they became " white and delightsome" again later on.
And as far as the " black" skin in the bible, it is plainly a curse from God and no amount of " political correctness" will change that.( I am sure I shall be cursed with the wrath of the masses, but it mattereth not.) But I cannot help what is plainly written by the keepers of the sacred records. I do not think Brigham was in error or as some or most have declared him to be " under the influences of his day". Joseph and Brigham had more light IMO than the vast majority of us today combined. But then again I think we have digressed spiritually since then.
I think you are sharing your personal feelings and interpretations, not "scriptural facts".

I gather then that you still believe in this idea that dark skinned people are inferior to light skinned people, that they were less valiant, and that it is a sin for the races to mix?

-Finrock

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Thinker »

We know that Americans today look very different than people who lived in America centuries ago. And we know people living in Israel today look very different than they did centuries ago. Even if the native Americans were of Jewish descent, a typical Jewish man during the time of Christ are considered by forensic anthropologists to look a bit like this:

Image

It wouldn’t make sense for someone who looked like Jesus or Native Americans to say the racially prejudice things quoted in the BofM. We know that essentially Joseph Smith chanelled the BofM - & he translated it from his own way of speaking, his own frame of reference, prejudices etc.

And as Joseph Smith suggested, “Search the scriptures and prophets and see what portion belongs to you.” In other words - don’t adopt their weaknesses like racial prejudice.

simpleton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3074

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by simpleton »

Because of scriptures like this for example that are so very plain, let it speak for itself without twisting and turning...

Alma 3:

And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.

16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.

17 And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.

18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.

19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by gardener4life »

In response to the above anti-rhetoric by a certain so and so here is my response;

If you had bothered to look up the source I linked in the original post (which you DID NOT and then claimed it wasn't there) you would have seen that I quoted from the history of the church section on LDS.org and that I didn't come up with my own ideas and was quoting other sources (Which I stated and you also ignored.) If you want more sources go read history of the church. But maybe I shouldn't say that since you will probably try to claim it's not there anyway.

I think also some people think that by trying to show differences in leaders from a hundred years ago and now you are thinking you can hoodwink into thinking that it's OK to try to pressure church leaders to make changes that fit your modernist agenas, and so on. That is still on top of the idea I stated about people who live in different eras sometimes get mistaken for what is language of their time. If leader BY is different from leader GBH and TSM then it should be OK to teach people that leaders are falling, wrong, or not the same. We've seen this argument propelled by certaing roups before. People who are living right won't fall for your manipulations. Also if you don't want people to say you are wrong then stop verbally going after them first. You cry wolf after you were the first one to bite the hand that tried to feed you. Do you think thats really fair.

We should prize knowledge that to help people soothe issues such as racism and polygamy, and any other challenging issue. My intent in the original statement was that I felt in praying about the scriptures and the gospel principles is that there are very simple ideas puzzled together in the scriptures that are pre-set to help anyone that's having challenges with certain concerns, or any concern about any principle in the gospel. And this was what I was trying to convey. It's only a matter of trying to find those things put down by church leaders under the influence of the Spirit and anyone with any concern about any issue can feel truth and light enough through study and prayer to have the concern become peace in their heart, and have a certainty that they can have a future in the gospel and that Christ is there for them. (By derailing the conversation you pulled people away from this idea.) I still think this way. I think that if we study the gospel and the teachings of the prophets, and modern prophets that any concern can be explained if we can feel the Holy Ghost. I have felt this many times. Even very difficult topics like the ones above in this paragraph can be worked out with love felt from Jesus. (But I'm not going to make you follow it. But you shouldn't try to stop others from hearing it, or try to pervert the message.)

I think partly you misunderstand that the original post was about a really wonderful peaceful feeling showing that we are trying to let others in, when it is healthy to do so. Because I used educated language and was confident from knowing what I said was true, you mistakenly thought I was full of pride when it was the opposite. I look forward to accepting others and one of the great things about a lot of these non-English culture members and non-English speaking members is how humble they are and have childlike faith that doesn't doubt. And I think the confidence I had in thse ideas stirred you up to make you think you had to be challenging of others, because of a mistaken idea about pride. But in reality I just feel that if the gospel is true I'm not going to be an apologist. People who know something is true are often mistaken as having an ego or prideful because of the confidence they have in the scriptures and the peace it brings.

Thanks to others for putting up some nice comments.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Mark »

"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.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Finrock »

Mark wrote: February 18th, 2018, 12:35 pm "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

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: A chance encounter with scripture & countering adversarial lies

Post by Mark »

Finrock wrote: February 18th, 2018, 6:32 pm
Mark wrote: February 18th, 2018, 12:35 pm "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.

Post Reply