Page 1 of 3

My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:33 pm
by _DannyBoy
The new R&P Statement says this:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse...."

Problem...The Book of Mormon teaches this:

"And he [God] caused THE CURSING to come upon them, yea, even a sore CURSING, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint [note: flints are dark black]; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause A SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)

Both of these statements CANNOT BE TRUE! If the R&B Statement is false, then why did the FP approve it? If they approved it, WHY did they not sign it? If the Book of Mormon statement is FALSE, then how much more of the book is false, or is it all false? The Law of Contradiction: black and white: black cannot also be white, and white cannot also be black. Both cannot be true at that same time.

THAT is my problem with the R&P Statement.


I was the victim of violent racism growing up in Los Angeles, and it was directed at me, a white person, by blacks and Hispanics. I did nothing to provoke this. This was in the early to mid 1970s, and many minorities were angered at whites because of slavery, racism, exploitation, which 98% of whites, including myself, had absolutely NOTHING to do with.

In the past, I did send the Brethren the following recommendations:

*I recommended to the First Presidency, as far back as 1978, that blacks in North america be allowed their own branches and wards, so that they would have their own black priethood leaders, and could feel more comfortable. Many African-Americans don't feel comfortable in mostly white branches and wards. This was rejected, because the Brethren fear the Media charging them with segregation.

*I recommended to the First Presidency, very long ago, That they hire and train black men to become "Pastors" (a new paid position in the Church) to lead black branches, and train local black priesthood leaders. As soon as the branch was large enough, and strong enough, the black Pastor would leave and work in another area to build up a new branch. This was rejected, again, because the Brethren feared negative press.

*I recommended to the First Presidency, long ago, that they issue a Public Apology for the Curse of Cain. The new "Race and Priesthood" Statement is a disavowal, not an apology.

*Begin to teach that the Jaredites were black (i.e. because they did not mention priesthood, and the Jaredites were descendants of Cain according to the Book of Ether...yes, its there). Again, the Brethren rejected this, because they were raised to believe that God would have NEVER communicated to descendants of Cain for any purpose.

*Begin to place articles in the ENSIGN about Elijah Abels and the other early faithful black Mormons. Again, this was not done, mainly because the Brethren did not want Members thinking about the Curse of Cain or priesthood-ban history. The Brethren wanted the Members to FORGET these things, not talk about them.

*Missionaries will always target those most likely to be baptized. The pressure for them to baptize is incredible! As a young English-speaking missionary in California, in the early 1980s, I was told to "baptize people of means--such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, business owners--educated people" because these were the people most likely to pay a faithful tithe, and most UNlikely to use Church Welfare. Well, of course, the doctors and lawyers and engineers and business owners were FAT AND HAPPY and did NOT want to join the Church. If they were religious at all, they already had a religion. Most were agnostics, and couldn't believe that an angel brought gold plates to a young boy. You might as well have told them that a Spaceship from Venus brought it! The only English-speaking people who had ANY desire to join the Church were two types:

1) Those very poor and down on their luck who WOULD use Church Welfare services and...

2) Men who wanted to marry Mormon women, but the women insisted they would only marry a good Mormon man. Most of my investigators were non-mormon men who were in love with or engaged to active Mormon women. They joined the Church ONLY because they wanted these women.

That was __________________IT________________! Nobody else, and I mean NOBODY ELSE, had any interest in the Mormon Church, in my mission, during the early 1980s, unless they were Spanish speaking, and were illegal immigrants. These folks would join any "American" church. If the JWs got to them first, they became JWs. If the Mormons got to them first, they became Mormons. Simple as that. The only folks in my mission who could believe in angels and plates and Adam and Eve being the first humans, were Evangelical Christians, ALL of whom believed Mormonism was an evil cult, or poor immigrants from Africa, or poor illiterate illegal aliens form Mexico or Central America. That's it.

The religion that has the most Pro-Black and pro-science teachings from the start, that I know of, is the Baha'i Faith.

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:45 pm
by _Shulem
The skin of blackness must mean he is a slave according to LDS revelation which they have failed to apologize for. The LDS church has called an Egyptian god a slave and prints this crap in their canon! The LDS church has slandered another religion's god and call him Olimlah! For crying out loud! :evil:

Image

Paul O

(I WONDER IF SHADES WILL POST THIS ONE? HMMM. HARD TO SAY, THE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE.)

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:52 pm
by _Tobin
DannyBoy,

The only person guilty of black-and-white thinking is you. The Book of Mormon was written by men and is a product of men and it includes their biases and mistakes. A black skin is not a sign of divine disfavor and that is not the message of the Book of Mormon.

Tobin

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:58 pm
by _DannyBoy
The main message of The Book of Mormon is that to become a son or daughter of God, we must be born-again. I was NEVER taught that at Church, nor by any Mormon! I was taught I was already a son of God, simply by being a human being. I was taught NOTHING about having to be "born again" when I was a Mormon. Nothing. I was told "Follow the Brethren". I was told to put my complete faith and trust in them, and do everything they commanded, and I would become a God in the eternities. That is what I was taught for 15 years.

The Book of Mormon _____DOES____TEACH_____ that the Lamanites were CURSED with a skin of blackness, because of their iniquities, and so that their women would not be enticing to the white Nephi men. Don't tell me the book does NOT teach that, because I know better.

"And he [God] caused THE CURSING to come upon them, yea, even a sore CURSING, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint [note: flints are dark black]; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause A SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)


Tobin wrote:DannyBoy,

The only person guilty of black-and-white thinking is you. The Book of Mormon was written by men and is a product of men and it includes their biases and mistakes. A black skin is not a sign of divine disfavor and that is not the message of the Book of Mormon.

Tobin

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:59 pm
by _Kevin Graham
Tobin, so you're saying the author of the Book of Mormon was wrong? That the Mormon scripture is wrong? Because whatever you say, the fact is the Church doesn't believe that to be true and it will never denounce its own scriptures. And if we cannot deduce what the "divine" thinks about this matter through the scriptures then how can you know anything about the divine?

And if the Book of Mormon author is just acting on his imperfect weaknesses and speaking as a man of his imperfect times, then why shouldn't this also apply to the current LDS leadership who just threw out this public relations piece by some anonymous writer?

Is the current leadership suddenly struck with infallibility? If not, then how do you know their rejection of over a century of Mormon teaching isn't just a product of men who are acting according to their times?

This is very simple to understand but it amazes me how many Mormons pretend to be so obtuse on this subject. Of course there is a double standard here. Of course the Church is talking out of both sides of its mouth. You cannot reject the curse without rejecting the Mormon scriptures discussing the curse. Until you reject the scriptures, saying you reject the curse means absolutely nothing because that scriptures are taught officially and represents official canon of the Church.

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:08 pm
by _Kevin Graham
Tobin can pretend that this is just your flawed understanding of the Book of Mormon but the fact is we have official interpretations of the Book of Mormon published by the Church for more than a century. Nothing taught about these verses contradict what you just said. Leaders have stood up in conference and declared to the world by the power of revelation and in the name of Jesus Christ that these verses refer explicitly to skin tone.

Mormons like Tobin who are so giddy about this recent statement really have nothing to fall back on except some remarks published by the Church by an anonymous writer.

On the flip side we have official teachings, official scriptures and above all, explicit revelation from God on this subject. And all of this that covers more than a century of Mormonism.

So I have to laugh my ass of when they say all those leaders were just acting according to the expectations of their times, because that is quite obviously the ONLY reason this recent statement was released. They have it backwards! Because our modern era is expecting the Church to be far more liberal than it really is, and so the Church gives in. So the question should be, is this how God really operates? Whatever happened to the glorious examples of Prophets and Apostles speaking divine truths no matter how politically incorrect they may be, often at the expense of their lives? I remember a pretty cool picture from the Book of Mormon where Abinadi is standing up and preaching repentance from the high wall as hundreds of arrows fly in his direction. The lesson from the Book of Mormon is that the divine word of God is more important than one's own life. Today, however, the Church believes it isn't even as important as political correctness.

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:25 pm
by _DannyBoy
Kevin Graham wrote: I remember a pretty cool picture from the Book of Mormon where Abinadi is standing up and preaching repentance from the high wall as hundreds of arrows fly in his direction. The lesson from the Book of Mormon is that the divine word of God is more important than one's own life. Today, however, the Church believes it isn't even as important as political correctness.


I remember first reading about the Curse of Cain Doctrine in an anti-Mormon book. I went to Church the next Sunday and asked: "Is this true?" People avoided me after that. Mormons like the idea of eternal marriage, endless sex, palaces and servants, but HATE anything in the Church that is unpopular with the World, and will CAVE on it in a Chinese second! I always thought that the Brethren would be Abinadi's....willing to DIE rather than to renounce the doctrines they grew up believing, and spent their adult lives teaching. NO WAY! They are CAVING to the World so fast it makes one's head spin. Wow...what EXAMPLES eh?

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:29 pm
by _cinepro
Kevin Graham wrote:Tobin, so you're saying the author of the Book of Mormon was wrong? That the Mormon scripture is wrong? Because whatever you say, the fact is the Church doesn't believe that to be true and it will never denounce its own scriptures. And if we cannot deduce what the "divine" thinks about this matter through the scriptures then how can you know anything about the divine?


There is a line of apologetic argument (promoted by Brant Gardner, among others, if I recall) that says that the racist passages in the Book of Mormon are accurate presentations of the fallible, racist attitudes of the culture (and Prophets) of that time and place.

So these passages can be ignored from a doctrinal standpoint, but serve as an evidence of the authenticity of the record, since we would expect such attitudes from those people. :eek:

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:47 pm
by _mackay11
DannyBoy wrote:*Begin to teach that the Jaredites were black (i.e. because they did not mention priesthood, and the Jaredites were descendants of Cain according to the Book of Ether...yes, its there). Again, the Brethren rejected this, because they were raised to believe that God would have NEVER communicated to descendants of Cain for any purpose.


There's only one mention of Cain in Ether. It doesn't support your conclusion:

Ether 8:15 And it came to pass that thus they did agree with Akish. And Akish did administer unto them the oaths which were given by them of old who also sought power, which had been handed down even from Cain, who was a murderer from the beginning.


So where does it say they are descendants of Cain? Things are not only handed down from father to son.

Re: My problems with the R&P Statement

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:54 pm
by _Bazooka
cinepro wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:Tobin, so you're saying the author of the Book of Mormon was wrong? That the Mormon scripture is wrong? Because whatever you say, the fact is the Church doesn't believe that to be true and it will never denounce its own scriptures. And if we cannot deduce what the "divine" thinks about this matter through the scriptures then how can you know anything about the divine?


There is a line of apologetic argument (promoted by Brant Gardner, among others, if I recall) that says that the racist passages in the Book of Mormon are accurate presentations of the fallible, racist attitudes of the culture (and Prophets) of that time and place.

So these passages can be ignored from a doctrinal standpoint, but serve as an evidence of the authenticity of the record, since we would expect such attitudes from those people. :eek:


I'd love to see where this apologetic is subscribed to officially by the Church itself...