DiscussMormonism.com

hagoth7 wrote: I looked up the term "quotemining" after your reaction, and saw that it does carry a negative connotation. That wasn't my intent. (I don't believe I've ever used that word before.) Apologies. In hindsight, knowing now what connotation that term holds, I shouldn't have use it.

So all can see, this is from wiki,

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution. Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.

Do you always use words with no idea of their meaning? You seem to do this a lot. Common sense would tell most that this word is derogatory, just from the way it is constructed and to therefore LOOK IT UP before using it.

hagoth7 wrote:There are a number of things that I don't yet understand. You could be right - perhaps that is something I need to learn more about. But for now, to reiterate my meaning, I sustain what President Kimball said about those who reached the South Pacific Islands tracing back to Hagoth's shipbuilding. Likewise, the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are regularly sustained in the church as prophets, seers, and revelators. The Seventy are not sustained as prophets, seers, or revelators. That is the context from which I was speaking.

This is simply silly posturing. Roberts spoke in many General Conferences and was totally AUTHORIZED to write about the Book of Mormon. So YES, he was authoritative, as much so as the "prophets, seers & revelators" that gave him that direct authorization. (As all have who speak in Conference, therefore what they say is DOCTRINE). He also submitted his work to the First Presidency's chosen committee to make sure it had no ERRORS in DOCTRINE. The Seventy are authoritative sources of doctrine. They are "special witnesses" in EXACTLY the same way that Apostles are, being called and ordained by them to their respective callings. Your comments here are irrelevant and really just another of your red herrings. Kimball did say that ALL of the descendants left were Lamanites, so I don't know why you keep harping on that. You are mistaken. There were no NEPHITES left, they became totally extinct as the authoritative sources I've quoted tell us.

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

To show the fallacy of Hagoth7's interpretation of this passage, once again, Mormon "Authorities",

lso they were "cut off" from the presence of the Lord, and that they might not be enticing to the Nephites, they were cursed of God with a skin of blackness, that whereas before the curse "they were white and exceeding fair, and delightsome," they were now dark skinned and repulsive (II Nephi 5:21-23). - B.H. Roberts

They were cursed of God with a skin of blackness, that whereas they had been "white and exceeding fair and delightsome," the "Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them," that they might be loathsome to Nephi's people. The curse was extended also to all those who should "mix with their seed." -B.H. Roberts

EVER and anon throughout the Book of Mormon, we are reminded by the inspired historians of the beauty of the Nephite race, especially in the days when the glory of righteousness beamed in their eyes, and shone in their countenances; then they were fair, very fair--a white and a delightsome people.... God has set the mark of his displeasure on the Lamanites, whom he has cursed, because of the iniquities of their fathers, with a darkened skin, uncomely features, and straight, black, coarse hair. In the beginning it was not so with either Judah or Manasseh. - George Reynolds

...because they disobeyed the law and determined to be a law unto themselves, they retrograded and were cursed with a dark skin and became the unfortunate race that wandered over this great western hemisphere for generations, before the coming of the white man. - George Albert Smith

It is said that they will become a white and delightsome people. They are delightsome at present, and I believe they are going to become white. They are growing whiter from year to year. I have said to myself and to some of my intimate friends that I thought the Hawaiian people would become white and delightsome, through intermarriage. -Eugene J. Neff, Conference Report, April 1927

They lived upon this continent for a few years and then they divided and subdivided, and conflicts arose, and a curse was placed upon some of these people and a dark skin was the result of this curse. This man thought to himself, "Can this be the Negro race of people?" Then as he read further along in the book he found that some day these people were to become white and delightsome again, and he could not imagine that this would be the Negro people. -Spencer Kimball

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngIos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, October 1960, p.34).

Not many moons shall pass away before, The curse of darkness from your skins shall flee, Your ancient beauty will the Lord restore, - Charles Penrose

2 Nephi 5:21 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
Jacob 3:8 I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought before the throne of God.
3 Nephi 2:15 and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.
3 Nephi 2:16 and their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites.

Behold, I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief; yea, and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famines and bloodshed, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct; yea, and this because they shall dwindle in unbelief, and fall into the works of darkness and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities; yea, I say unto you, that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge; yea, I say unto you, that from this day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away, before this great iniquity shall come; and when that great day cometh, behold, the time very soon cometh that those which are now, or the seed of those which are now numbered among the people of Nephi, shall no more be numbered among the people of Nephi; but whosoever remaineth, and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day, shall be numbered among the Lamanites, and shall become like unto them all, save it be a few, which shall be called the disciples of the Lord; and them shall the Lamanites pursue, even until they shall become extinct. And now, because of iniquity, this prophecy shall be fulfilled. The Book of Mormon, 1830, p.348-p.349 (Alma, Chapter XXI)

This even says that "the seed of those which are now numbered among the people of Nephi, shall no more be numbered among the people of Nephi; but whosoever remaineth, and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day, shall be numbered among the Lamanites, and shall become like unto them all, save it be a few, which shall be called the disciples of the Lord; and them shall the Lamanites pursue, even until they shall become extinct."

Why cling only to the part of the Nephite record that supports a supposed bigoted, 19th-century intent behind 2 Nephi 30?

Because that was the intent of it, as attested to by all of the Mormon "authorities" I have cited and many I have not. And it is not "supposed bigoted", it is totally and unequivocally bigoted. If it was so self explanatory as "white and delightsome", then why change it to "pure and delightsome"? There is no good reason, unless to make it less bigoted.

In case hagoth7 missed this - here is a really full quote in context, with a couple of extremely clear and simple questions based on it.

OK to answer now?

Chap wrote:

DrW wrote:This kind of weasel worded statement is one of the things that costs Mormon apologists and true believers a great deal of credibility with those who are not LDS. Since you didn't really answer the question, I will ask it again in a more precise manner:

Do you believe that the cohort of Native American people who belong to the LDS Church have statistically lighter skin tone than a cohort matched for age, sex, geographic area, socioeconomic status, and general health that does not belong to the LDS Church?

Please do your best to respond with a simple "Yes" or "No".

hagoth7 wrote:Provide the quote in context, rather than your paraphrase, and I'll gladly respond.

Remove the insult as well, and you'll likely get a better response.

Thank you.

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter we represent, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather .... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

It seems to me that the man who said that clearly believed that joining the LDS church has led to the skin shade of these people becoming lighter.

Do you agree that my interpretation is a reasonable deduction from his words?

And if so, do you agree that he was factually correct in that belief? Or, as DrW put the question in the most precise fashion possible:

Do you believe that the cohort of Native American people who belong to the LDS Church have statistically lighter skin tone than a cohort matched for age, sex, geographic area, socioeconomic status, and general health that does not belong to the LDS Church?

Please do your best to respond with a simple "Yes" or "No".

grindael wrote:...Your "authorities" supposedly speak by the power of the "Holy Ghost".

hagoth7 wrote:Sometimes they do. And sometimes they speak their opinion. You...know that to be the understanding in the church.

OK, then tell me exactly when they do and don't....

hagoth7 wrote:I had a quote by Joseph Smith in mind when saying that. You're certainly familiar with the quote. It is cited early on in this article: http://www.adrr.com/living/prophet.htm

"This is an old question. It was asked of the Prophet Joseph Smith and answered by him. He writes in his journal, "This morning . . . I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such" (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, 5:265).

First, there is no context for this quote. What prompted it? What was Smith doing? In other cases, some apostatized because Smith played with Children, etc. To some this is not "acting" like a prophet. Was Jo speaking of giving "revelations"? Teaching doctrine? This quote is useless for determining such things because we don't know the context behind it. It was only a short entry in his diary. We have a plethora of other statements though, that show that when giving revelation, they are infallible. Second, it doesn't even answer my question. When are the comments made at Conferences, in Journals, Periodicals, etc. NOT them acting like prophets, or those with prophetic/priesthood authority/direction to speak on doctrinal matters?

When Jo was preaching, was he "acting" like a prophet? Giving talks at General Conferences, is that "acting" like a prophet? Writing or speaking about the Gospel, is that "acting" like a prophet? Brigham Young actually took this further and said that in TEMPORAL affairs, he (and Joseph) actual WERE acting like prophets and that any who questioned them (that they were WRONG in ANYTHING) were in apostasy. Note:

Brigham Young wrote:I have told you what causes apostacy. It arises from neglect of prayers and duties, and the Spirit of the Lord leaves those who are thus negligent and they begin to think that the authorities of the church are wrong. In the days of Joseph the first thing manifested in the case of apostacy was the idea that Joseph was liable to be mistaken, and when a man admits that in his feelings and sets it down as a fact, it is a step towards apostacy, and he only needs to make one step more and he is cut off from the church. That is the case in any man. When several of the Twelve were cut off, the first step was that Joseph was a prophet, but he had fallen from his office and the Lord would suffer him to lead the people wrong. When persons get that idea in their minds, they are taking the first step to apostacy. If the Lord has designed that I should lead you wrong, then let us all go to hell together and, as Joseph used to say, we will take hell by force, turn the devils out and make a heaven of it. ((Brigham Young, sermon given on 21 March 1858, Salt Lake Tabernacle, transcribed by George D. Watt, Van Wagoner, Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, pg. 1420)

This is a ridiculous rebuttal to try and use to discredit statements they have made in circumstances where they should definitely be acting like a prophet. Do they just lose their prophetic keys when they don't "act" like a prophet? Jo himself made the distinction, as quoted below.

Again, it falls back to YOU. When it is opinion? What circumstances would that be under? Do the statements quoted fall under that category, if so, how do you prove it? You have done none of that, but instead have tried to generalize the argument so much so, that you have a ready excuse to reject anything you don't agree with. That's dishonest. I have shown that there is a pattern in all of this, supported by not one out of context statement, but by many statements made at various times and all espousing the same doctrinal position and clarification on "white and delightsome" and the extinction of the Nephites. Therefore the argument you make here is irrelevant.

Here is J. Reuben Clark,

I have observed that the Lord has his own ways of communicating his mind and will to his prophets, uninfluenced by the thoughts or views of men as to his proper procedure; that sometimes he evidently speaks with an audible voice, but that at other times he speaks inaudibly to the ear but clearly to the mind of the prophet. I quoted how the Prophet Joseph worked as he received revelations and how his countenance changed in appearance at such times. I have tried to explain briefly how, as Joseph said, a prophet is not always a prophet, but is a prophet only when acting as such, and that this means that not always may the words of a prophet be taken as a prophecy or revelation, but only when he, too, is speaking as "moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

I repeat here some of the elemental rules that, as to certain matters, will enable us always to know when others than the Presiding High Priest, the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, the President of the Church, will not be speaking as "moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

When any one except the President of the Church undertakes to proclaim a revelation from God for the guidance of the Church, we may know he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

When any one except the President of the Church undertakes to proclaim that any scripture of the Church has been modified, changed, or abrogated, we may know he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direct authority and direction of the President.

When any one except the President of the Church undertakes to proclaim a new doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direct authority and direction of the President.

When any one except the President of the Church undertakes to proclaim that any doctrine of the Church has been modified, changed, or abrogated, we may know that he is not "moved upon the by Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.

All Conference Addresses are given under direct authority of the President of the Church. He is sitting there, after all. Roberts wrote under direct authority of the President of the Church. So that's settled. Again, it is for those who claim that they are NOT speaking under the power of the Holy Ghost, to PROVE that they were not in that instance. The default is that they are, when they are speaking in General Conferences and exercising the keys of their callings. Mormon Apologists act like these men don't know or understand what that is. Here is Moses Thatcher from 1885 who expresses what all these men knew and understood,

“Nothing to my mind can be greater sacrilege in the sight of the Almighty than to undertake to speak in His name without the inspiration of His spirit. We may talk upon the branches of human learning and knowledge, speaking after the manner of men with but little of this feeling of timidity, but not when we undertake to speak of the principles of life and salvation, of the plan of human redemption as it has always existed—as it existed before the foundations of the world were laid, as it will continue to exist until every child of God except the sons of perdition shall be brought back and exalted in a degree of glory far beyond the comprehension of the finite mind. It has sometimes been said that Mormonism, so called, is narrow, proscriptive and selfish; yet those who comprehend it, even in part, have never made such an assertion.

Can a church not even bearing the name of the Redeemer, and having neither Apostles nor Prophets, bear the fruits enjoyed by the disciples of our Lord in the days of and subsequent to His ministry? Do any of them ever claim to have such fruits? Who among them have the endowments of the Comforter, whose mission it was and is to bring the teachings of Jesus to the memory, show things to come and lead into all truth? God neither changes nor is he a respecter of persons; the causes, therefore, which lie ordained to produce certain results in one age will produce them in another.” (Moses Thatcher, John Dehlin:26:303-4, 10 [1885])

As for Smith, remember he also said,

"I never told you I was perfect, but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations I have taught." See the discussion here on this... viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38261&start=21

hagoth7 wrote:Also, I'm not concerned about the issue of credibility in an online forum like this where everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. But based on the above, you do owe me an apology.

Hagoth7, you should apologize to the whole board for your obsessive repetitions, evasions, distortions and now petulant whining.

hagoth7 wrote:Precisely what was weasel worded about it?

Okay, I could have been more clear about what I considered weasel words.

By way of clarification, what you essentially said was that you believed that Mr. Kimball believed that he saw what he said he saw, and since you were not there, you can't dispute his assertion as to what he saw.

This was essentially your answer to the question;
Do you believe (as Kimball stated) that joining the LDS Church makes Native Americans more white and delightsome?

You should realize that your response revealed nothing about your personal belief regarding the question of religious belief bringing about a change in skin color. Therefore, I considered it to be weasel worded.

hagoth7 wrote:Also, I'm not concerned about the issue of credibility in an online forum like this where everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. But based on the above, you do owe me an apology.

You are quite correct - everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. And unlike the situation on the "Boards of the Faithful", folks are not banned here for expressing unpopular or even ridiculous ideas or opinions.

However, that does not mean that the credibility of folks who continually express such ideas and opinions, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not severely diminished as they continue to do so.

I do not believe that pointing out this fact carries with it any responsibility for an apology on my part. So I trust that the clarification above will suffice.

grindael wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Sometimes they do. And sometimes they speak their opinion. You've quote-mined LDS statements enough to know that to be the understanding in the church. Furthermore, for clarity, B.H. Roberts, who you cited repeatedly, was president of the first quorum of the seventy. He was never apostle or prophet, or church patriarch, so citing him repeatedly doesn't even come close to demonstrating an authoritative doctrine of the church, although the repeated attempt to do so is duly noted. Finally, even if he had received one of those other callings, you know full well that not everything uttered or written by an apostle or a prophet is considered official doctrine.

Ok, then tell me exactly when they do and don't. If it is so easy for you to spout that they are speaking OPINION. When? Where? How? Why?

This is one of my favorite apologetic arguments. Obviously if the prophet says something like "Laverne & Shirley is the best TV show ever" we can assume he is stating his opinion and not proclaiming doctrine. But when Prophets give statements about church doctrine and beliefs from the pulpit, and these statements are supported by other prophets saying the same thing, and is backed up by scriptural text, I think we can assume it is church doctrine. I know the church doesn't like to make anything official doctrine, which I also find funny, but if the guys who claim to be prophets, seers, and revelators, and who are the only people with authority to speak for God, state what the church believes, and what the doctrines are and we can't trust they are speaking for God, and have no way of knowing if what they are saying is doctrine or opinion, then they are simply unreliable, and something that is unreliable is pretty much useless. I always thought that Mormonism solved the problem of the great Apostacy. God was once again speaking to men through his Latter-Day prophets. But now Mormons are perfectly fine admitting that their prophets are unreliable.

DarkHelmet wrote:
This is one of my favorite apologetic arguments. Obviously if the prophet says something like "Laverne & Shirley is the best TV show ever" we can assume he is stating his opinion and not proclaiming doctrine. But when Prophets give statements about church doctrine and beliefs from the pulpit, and these statements are supported by other prophets saying the same thing, and is backed up by scriptural text, I think we can assume it is church doctrine. I know the church doesn't like to make anything official doctrine, which I also find funny, but if the guys who claim to be prophets, seers, and revelators, and who are the only people with authority to speak for God, state what the church believes, and what the doctrines are and we can't trust they are speaking for God, and have no way of knowing if what they are saying is doctrine or opinion, then they are simply unreliable, and something that is unreliable is pretty much useless. I always thought that Mormonism solved the problem of the great Apostacy. God was once again speaking to men through his Latter-Day prophets. But now Mormons are perfectly fine admitting that their prophets are unreliable.

Funny how Jo gave "revelations" at the drop of a stone in a hat, about just about anything. He would actually answer questions and give doctrinal explanations. Someone would preach a sermon, and Jo would later correct them in all the points that he said were wrong. (A great example is Orson Hyde and the "Holy Ghost"). Brigham Young did much of the same thing. But after that, things started to change, although Taylor had some of his own "revelations" and Woodruff also. It is when the Church started making lots and lots of money, that things began to change. Its image became everything and all of a sudden the "prophets" began to quiet down. Right around 1890 when Jo had prophesied the return of Christ. I think it then dawned on them that their founding "prophet" was more than a little wrong about things. But they had to protect the institution at all costs. The "Oracles of God" are now little more than Corporate Managers who preach a sermon or two twice a year and spend all the rest of their time managing the Corporation. "No Official Position" is the new mantra, and will be for a long, long time to come. If you don't prophesy, you can't be shown to be a false prophet.

hagoth7 wrote:

I have a question wrote:But I guess you realise that makes you a racist?

? By accepting what he said he saw? How so?

You are accepting that lighter skin colour equals increased righteousness.
You are accepting racism that has been completely disavowed recently (see "Race and the Priesthood").

And that the Church has disavowed Kimball's comments and, by association, you?

Precisely to which disavowal are you referring?

"Race and the Priesthood"

I have a question wrote:Do you sustain the following position, articulated by Kimball, on the subject of rape?
"It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”...

I would suggest opening a separate thread if that is a topic that you somehow find relevant. It is a tangent that isn't relevant to the Book of Mormon.

It's relevant because you are using Kimball to support your opinion in this thread. I'm trying to ascertain if you sustain all the positions the Prophet, President Kimball took, or if you are simply cherry picking his comments to fit with what you want to believe?